E-minimallanguage aims to use set of (human) root concepts and thereby get away with ~300 one-syllable words which can be combined to form any concept conceivable. It is actually possible to use it to talk about arbitrary topics. But it is not an efficient or fluid language. Some constructions needed to express simple things are unpractical in everyday use.
Now, I’m not saying words are the end all to be all.
But in the history of mankind it seems there are two types of people.
The common man, and the rational philosopher.
And throughout history, the only time there seems to be a clear, coherent distinction between “absolute” truth and “objective” truth, is when the rational philosopher decides it’s time to correct the common man’s confusion between them.
The common man seems to think “objective” means “independent of a mind”. That as our understanding changes, it has no affect on objective truth or objective reality.
However, that means the knowledge we do have might be completely wrong, as tomorrow we have new theories.
Therefore, to the common man, objectivity is some unattainable ideal.
The issue is “independent of a mind” is ambiguous.There are two types of independence.
Not dependent on a single mind, and not dependent on a mind at all.
How it works is something like this.
Subjective is dependent on a single mind.
Objective is independent a single mind, but dependent on all minds
Absolute is independent minds
In the sequence about how to use words, there is some folksy advice and not taking words too seriously. That said, if we have a proper understanding of absolute and objective, then we gain the understanding that every single word (besides absolute, relative, objective, and subjective) is fair game.
Personally, I’ve struggled to find people whose eyes don’t glaze over when you say something like “objective != absolute”.
I thought “This idea is historically called rationalism, I wonder if contemporary rationalists will understand”.
It seems I’ve been banned from starting new topics now. So I guess not.
It seems I’ve been banned from starting new topics now.
Your ability to “start new topics” depends on your karma (local reputation currency). At the moment you have negative karma and so cannot make new top-level posts.
E-minimal language aims to use set of (human) root concepts and thereby get away with ~300 one-syllable words which can be combined to form any concept conceivable. It is actually possible to use it to talk about arbitrary topics. But it is not an efficient or fluid language. Some constructions needed to express simple things are unpractical in everyday use.
Are these two statement contradictory:
“Words are not absolute. Words are objective.”
Or are they both true?
Now, I’m not saying words are the end all to be all.
But in the history of mankind it seems there are two types of people.
The common man, and the rational philosopher.
And throughout history, the only time there seems to be a clear, coherent distinction between “absolute” truth and “objective” truth, is when the rational philosopher decides it’s time to correct the common man’s confusion between them.
The common man seems to think “objective” means “independent of a mind”. That as our understanding changes, it has no affect on objective truth or objective reality.
However, that means the knowledge we do have might be completely wrong, as tomorrow we have new theories.
Therefore, to the common man, objectivity is some unattainable ideal.
The issue is “independent of a mind” is ambiguous.There are two types of independence.
Not dependent on a single mind, and not dependent on a mind at all.
How it works is something like this.
Subjective is dependent on a single mind.
Objective is independent a single mind, but dependent on all minds
Absolute is independent minds
In the sequence about how to use words, there is some folksy advice and not taking words too seriously. That said, if we have a proper understanding of absolute and objective, then we gain the understanding that every single word (besides absolute, relative, objective, and subjective) is fair game.
Personally, I’ve struggled to find people whose eyes don’t glaze over when you say something like “objective != absolute”.
I thought “This idea is historically called rationalism, I wonder if contemporary rationalists will understand”.
It seems I’ve been banned from starting new topics now. So I guess not.
Your ability to “start new topics” depends on your karma (local reputation currency). At the moment you have negative karma and so cannot make new top-level posts.