Ron said: Why Essentialism seems so difficult to break from resides in the grammar of our language, the logical predication and ordering of concepts as laid out per Aristotle based on those assumptions. But as Dmb says that is broken once essentialism is rejected and natural language remains.
Matt replied:: I would warn away from the idea of a "natural language." You don't need it for any of the things that you (or DMB, for that matter) are trying to say. I don't think it can really pan out (much the same way any other assertion of a "real" X over an infectious/appearance Y--all just part of Plato's essentialism). Better to stick to the idea that we need a new and better language, not to get back to how language really would be naturally (how would you know it if you saw it?). dmb says: I don't think Ron meant "natural language" in that sense. I certainly didn't say anything about "how language really would be naturally". I suppose Ron just meant normal, conventional language, what native speakers use. Even if we do need a new language, what can we do but wait? I mean, language is so much bigger and deeper than any one speaker. Ships like that don't exactly turn on a dime, you know? And what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Hum? Sure, conventional language has its problems but what choice do we have but to use it? People need to communicate with the tools at hand, even philosophers. Sure, occasionally someone invents a new tool but communication requires a certain amount of stability. Its the agreement of relatively stable meanings that make it work, no? _________________________________________________________________ Get more from your digital life. Find out how. http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
