>
>> Okay, I think it is a big jump to say that people who want "real" meanings
>> to words are also people who beleive in Platonic form. I am of the first
>> group but not the latter. Why can't their be meanings to words: that is,
>> why can't words just apply to certain objects with a defined parameter?
>
>Then who makes the parameter? My point is that there is no object,
>no thing, that can provide some absolute reference for words without
>resorting to some sort of universal, which is a platonic form.
Webster, I guess. Seriously, presuming a universal does not mean presuming
a platonic form. A pltonic form is some essence which exists outside of
anything. I universal, I take it, is the understanding of the essence of a
thing. I think I agree with the other stuff you wrote, I just have a
problem with saying that words with absolute reference depend on a platonic
form. Also, I amn not sure what you mean by saying that there is no thing
whivch can provide some absolute reference for words without resorting to
some sort of universal. Are you attempting to be an idealist? OR are you
saying that there are no essences? The universal is the understanding we
have of the essence of the thing, though we have no real access to the
essence of things except through the intelligible species which is what we
gain of the essence of a thing through our senses. I see no reason for
saying that there are groups of things with similar charecteristics which
define them as the things they are. Og course, there may be some words
which we use that have no set characteristics, like "game", orfor which the
set is too extensive to define.
Jeff
>> Okay, I think it is a big jump to say that people who want "real" meanings
>> to words are also people who beleive in Platonic form. I am of the first
>> group but not the latter. Why can't their be meanings to words: that is,
>> why can't words just apply to certain objects with a defined parameter?
>
>Then who makes the parameter? My point is that there is no object,
>no thing, that can provide some absolute reference for words without
>resorting to some sort of universal, which is a platonic form.
Webster, I guess. Seriously, presuming a universal does not mean presuming
a platonic form. A pltonic form is some essence which exists outside of
anything. I universal, I take it, is the understanding of the essence of a
thing. I think I agree with the other stuff you wrote, I just have a
problem with saying that words with absolute reference depend on a platonic
form. Also, I amn not sure what you mean by saying that there is no thing
whivch can provide some absolute reference for words without resorting to
some sort of universal. Are you attempting to be an idealist? OR are you
saying that there are no essences? The universal is the understanding we
have of the essence of the thing, though we have no real access to the
essence of things except through the intelligible species which is what we
gain of the essence of a thing through our senses. I see no reason for
saying that there are groups of things with similar charecteristics which
define them as the things they are. Og course, there may be some words
which we use that have no set characteristics, like "game", orfor which the
set is too extensive to define.
Jeff