The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
November 27th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: Is Dasein a Reality?
Bernx at aol.com wrote:
> jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
>
> phenomenological inquiry needs to assume an adult view of the relation
> between names and the things named: no phenomenon, not even the
> originary phenomenon, tells us its own name; and, hence, the name we
> give it does not derive from it. the name for it comes from the language
> we use to name it.
>
> *Joe, then you reject certain root predicates that run with common
> meaning in ALL langiages? That would be to assume that linguistics is
> immune to a linguistically embedded archai facultas praeformandi.*
no, just the opposite.
you can identify candidates for use as a root predicate by completing
the sentence: for any x that is, x is a … (of some sort).
this simple test would indentify ‘being’, ‘existent’ and ‘reality’ as
good root predicate candidates in english. I’m sure that similar words
would be identified as candidates for use as a root predicate in other
languages.
what I reject is Michael E’s insistence that we are all compelled to use
‘being’ as our root predicate because ‘x is’ always already asserts
‘being’ of x.
I am saying that ‘x is’ asserts the root predicate *as a variable*. one
may choose to use ‘being’ as the root predicate in which case ‘x is’
means ‘x is a being’. but, one may instead choose to use ‘existent’ as a
root predicate in which case ‘x is’ means ‘x is an existent’.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
