/lit/ - Literature

>>10532942
>There is some unjustified believe somewhere in your system
It's not my system. I've just never found any internal inconsistencies. From Mahayana buddhism thousands of years ago to Derrida, it's held it's weight.

>The law of identity, Aristotelian logic, Peano arithmetic, among others.
With Aristotelian logic, semantics generally rejects Aristotelian logic and essences. The same as forms. General semantics, upon which Derrida founded deconstruction, was called, "non-Aristotelian logic" The entire field of mathematics is regarded as being internal to GS too.

I saw this image yesterday. James Franco has absolutely nothing to do with this, it was written 100 years ago. The axiom in this case is said to be "the map is not the territory."

>>10523557
>The linguistic playground is reality you psueds

Not that guy, but, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe;" the word is not the thing; the map is not the territory. The linguistic structures we use to describe reality must not be confused with reality itself... Reality is objective, it is a fixed way regardless of us. Our description of reality is founded upon billions of statements, and here is why the distinction is important, because all of them must remain potentially falsifiable. Newton's gravity is not gravity itself, it is a description of gravity. It accurately predicts the actions of objects. But it is a description, which is why Einstein's different description was able to predict the movements of objects with immense mass like planets with a higher degree of accuracy. Both made descriptions of reality, one appeared more accurate. I'm guessing you mean that linguistics occurs 'within' reality, and you would be right, but you mustn't confuse reality itself with our enormous intersubjective linguistic description of reality. It gets more complicated when one stops describing pens and cars and begins describing something beautiful or evil.

Unrivaled genius.

>>6782217
>What does essence mean? (srs question)

It's a metaphysical property that is intrinsically tied to the object or event you perceive. For example, look at the objects around you: there may be a bed, a table, a phone, a door, etc. For each of these you could say there is an intrinsic essence, 'table-ness' and 'door-ness'. Buddhism and contemporary philosophy reject the existence of an essence and say 'table-ness' is a linguistic concept that humans have created and superimposed over the material.

This James Franco meme image articulates it quite well.

James Franco

>>6379336
>Linguistic and semantic philosophy should die already. There is literally no need for the circle-jerk they perform on a daily basis, such as this, because science have an ample answer.
Heeeeeere's FRANCO.

>>6371253
>"One" is not an inherent part of a neutron. Can you open the neutron and show us the one-ness form or essence?
>>6371328
>'One' is most certainly part of a (NOTICE THIS ONE LETTER WORD?) neutron.
Wow. I honestly didn't expect you to have this level of ignorance of philosophy of science. No, numbers are not inherent magical forms found inside things. What you are attempting to do is on the same level as saying a 'boat' contains a 'boat-ness' form. If I have one boat or one neutron, the concept of 'one-ness', 'boat-ness' and 'neutron-ness' are all applied by me.

>I understand your desire to attach undetectable concepts to real objects
You are attaching concepts and I am trying to detach them for you. I'm trying to explain to you how language gives a description of what we call empirical events. Language is not inside these things, it's our creation.

>The fact that 'one' exists in our universe, is a solid proof that it exists outside of it.
Even this James Franco meme image can show you why you are wrong.

For your level of philosophical illiteracy, I'd suggest pondering a concept like "wrong" until you can see how "wrong-ness" is not inherent in an action, but a linguistic statement made by an individual to describe the action.

>>5324165
>God that picture infuriates me. Fucking bloviating on and on in esoteric terms indicates a weak argument that has been gilded over to appear credible. Fellow students used to do this at University, and it rankled me to no end.
>If you've got something to say James Franco maybe you should splice in some perspicuous language amongst this highfalutin, voluble shit. Use the precise word, not the one that makes you sound smart.
>yes i mad 10/10

>>5269884
>what you say in language says nothing about "reality."

>>5264536
Incidentally, Korzybski is the author of those plagiarized James Franco quotes.

>>5238314
>I agree with Franco, however one could say it with less words.

he always writes like that

>>5223807