Whats In A Name? (A Critical Exposition Of Universal Language For Particular Sciences: Nominal Formalism)

 

    One of the problems of universals is that in order to make a groundwork of knowledge, one must presuppose that all theories have a level of intelligiblity close enough to approximate the transference of ideas from one person to another, provided the transference is successful, one can connect the dots and form a serious web of associations that would be needed to uncover more knowledge and make discoveries of epistemic proportions that would lead to a society that advances in the arts, architecture, biology, zoology, psychology and so forth. in order to do this we must define words as they are written, in plain form, their sole unique meanings that belong to them individually, and individually only. For if a word describe many different synonyms or had meanings that were divergent from from its core root word,  it would only serve to confuse the listener or reader to what the intention of the name's origin would be. For instance saying or referring to "the world" does it mean any "world" or a particular "world", or which of the many "worlds"? if we prefix it with "red world" does it mean any red world or something like Mars or another planet that is defined by "red"? Furthermore, "red" only denotes a color, but you cannot say "I am going to the red" the red what? the red house? the red factory or something absurd like "Clifford the big red dog"? No, entertain me for a second. that sentence is defined by "Clifford" and them being "red" and a "dog", those words taken alone are simply descriptions, as who is "Clifford"? Clifford could be anyone, and the word "red" could be capitalized as "Red" and it might denote "Red Foreman" from a particular sitcom we have watched in the past. "Red Foreman" is two names, not just designating any "Red", but a particular "Red", that of the "Foreman" clan. Take something like "Father John Simpson", by this induction we know he is likely a priest, his name is John, and comes from a family of Simpson. taken alone, those three predicates are really all just universal things, as "Father" could mean your father, my father or a priest. John could be anyone named John and Simpson could be any family named Simpson, as it does not denote a particular significance to a specific clan of Simpsons, but any Simpson. but enough of names. lets look at this sentence: "a waking wave waved to the sunrise", the problem with this sentence, is it waking as in the distinction of awakening from a dream, or did the tide come in? Waves don't have hands either, but it could have signaled a greeting to the morning sunrise. Because the language isn't clear, and full of similies, it poses more questions than answers. Of course poetry is an art, but isn't Poetry supposed to communicate at least a sembalance of a clear idea? One could postulate that its supposed to invoke our imagination, which by all rights, is the root of scientific inquiry. One only needs to imagine something and make a series of inquiries into how it could bring the idea to life, Karl Marx, for all his theories on wage labor and alienation and class struggle, seemed to have a weak point in his ontology, which could be potentially dangerous since summoning something without making inquires into its practical use, could make human life on Earth inhospitable. That's why language or proper linguistics, must take into account the "specificness" of its terminology so it can be used for exchanges of ideas and logical investigation. Each sentence must correlate with other sentences in a system and relate to a central concept, Sentences are only true if they are grounded in a system where they are complimentary, and value is determined by the relative importance to the central clause where the belief originates. This results in a process of absolute derivation to get the core of all beliefs in which is the absolute monad of existence in itself. German itself, while great to learn, is a very compound specific language which can make logical inquires very opaque and we might never get to the bottom line of something that could be of practical use to mankind. Likewise, Dutch, in my investigations, has a lot of linguistic generalities that make communication difficult to first time initiates. At least the romance languages have proper articles, which is one advantage it has over English. I cannot stress enough how much English would improve with gendered classes. However, that is neither here nor there, so we must make do with what we have. Taki Taki, or Sranan, is a language with so little grammar one has not much use for it, it would be terrifying if one were to use the language to communicate ideas, as we would be Cave denizens if it was simplified further. Its of no wonder that a Canadian would invent such a primitive language that has no use in academic matters (I sincerely hope its not being used that way, if so, God help us). Languages such as Esperanto have a wider use, Volapuk less, but these are artifically constructed languages that are good for a global lingua franca but likely not a good academic tongue. As stated, the best language is the one with the most discreet vocabulary and grammar, for it can explain many concepts that would clear up confusion when conducting experiments or making scientific judgments, the most perfect so far being the tongue of merchants and tradesman. This is why the English, aside from their missteps, have created a language suitable for scientific discovery, and why so many "primitive" cultures are many steps behind in civilizing their people.

                                                                                J./Adolf Stalin

(edited 3/25/22, 4/10/22)