I want to sow doubt in the minds of those who define reality in terms of things... -wsieber


Everyone defines reality in terms of things mr. wsieber, other than the transcendental we must use words, and words are things and also describe "things". So what are things? Things are our abstractions from the totality of the universe that are evolutionarily functional. In other words, a thing is given an independent functional existence when it is given a name.

...whether words like 'force' and 'torque' and other mathematical descriptions are real or just lucky conveniences. - Falliable Fiend

Words are arbitrary, reality is everything and therefore all-inclusive. A classic routine is - What is a ball? No, not a dance, a ball is a object that is used in games. No- that's a hockey puck, balls are round, not flat. Yes, that is a ball but it is flat, blow it up. Yes, I know it's not round , it's a football! And so forth. But everyone knows what a ball is. It is a tangible object that bounces. Like a bowling ball.

But intangibles such as systems have positive evolutionrary value and as such they are as concrete as, well, concrete, or bowling balls. Culture, for example.

In other words, none of our extractions can be an absolute member of an absolute group, each is unique, even if only by virtue of the fact that it occupies a singular relative position in space. So each categorization we make is flawed. About the closest the study of semantics can come to a workable tenet is...

Words have no ultimate meaning, words only have function.


Non cogito, ergo non sum? - Keiva

That's an interesting question Kevia, but it is tangent to the question at hand . I think latin in general is too vague for inquiries into the nature of words and language. The use of latin serves well those who need to isolate a particular sense of meaning, or to obscure, or, probably most often, to impress the barefooted.