More on Grammar and Relativity (but not Middle Fingers)
In response to bpr's comments to my last entry, I thought I would respond in more detail here.
Long ago, I posted an entry about geometrical definitions and their place in epistimology.[1] In it, I stated that:I have found in my thinking that morality without preassumed postulates and definitions is pointless. I am an absolutist, not a relativist. I believe that certain things must be right or wrong fundamentally for morality to exist at all. Can I prove this? No. Can a mathematician prove that a point must exist? No. But I challenge any engineer, any biologist, any chemist, any architect, any craftsman to do their work without geometry, without belief in the point and line as simply existing without proof.
Yesterday, I mentioned how I think many things can be relative, yet still holding that some things cannot be. I also stated that without an authoritative comitee or person setting the rules, there could be no absolute method to grammar or writing or math. bpr pointed out that changing the definition of "2+2=4" would not change that if 2 objects are placed next to 2 other objects there would still be 4 objects. He is correct. We observe this to be the case. It has to be the case for math to make any sense at all, for math to be absolute.
Einsein's theory of realtivity only makes sense if there is an assumption/definition: the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
We can believe facts because we observe them or we can believe because they must be true for the system to work or -- in the case of "2+2=4" -- both.
I believe morality can only make sense if there are absolute assumptions/definitions.
In the case of "2+2=4", we observe that that is always the case, that it is an absoulte. I believe personally that that is because it was designed that way, hence my references to an authority.
Now, in grammar, we are not dealing with a static system that remains as it was designed. It is an ever-evolving system. Regardless of who designed it, it no longer functions as it was designed, and we cannot know its original design for certain. That is why in this case, an English grammar commitee is needed.
This was sort of a haphazard post, but my thoughts are still turning on how to link all of this together....
Long ago, I posted an entry about geometrical definitions and their place in epistimology.[1] In it, I stated that:I have found in my thinking that morality without preassumed postulates and definitions is pointless. I am an absolutist, not a relativist. I believe that certain things must be right or wrong fundamentally for morality to exist at all. Can I prove this? No. Can a mathematician prove that a point must exist? No. But I challenge any engineer, any biologist, any chemist, any architect, any craftsman to do their work without geometry, without belief in the point and line as simply existing without proof.
Yesterday, I mentioned how I think many things can be relative, yet still holding that some things cannot be. I also stated that without an authoritative comitee or person setting the rules, there could be no absolute method to grammar or writing or math. bpr pointed out that changing the definition of "2+2=4" would not change that if 2 objects are placed next to 2 other objects there would still be 4 objects. He is correct. We observe this to be the case. It has to be the case for math to make any sense at all, for math to be absolute.
Einsein's theory of realtivity only makes sense if there is an assumption/definition: the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
We can believe facts because we observe them or we can believe because they must be true for the system to work or -- in the case of "2+2=4" -- both.
I believe morality can only make sense if there are absolute assumptions/definitions.
In the case of "2+2=4", we observe that that is always the case, that it is an absoulte. I believe personally that that is because it was designed that way, hence my references to an authority.
Now, in grammar, we are not dealing with a static system that remains as it was designed. It is an ever-evolving system. Regardless of who designed it, it no longer functions as it was designed, and we cannot know its original design for certain. That is why in this case, an English grammar commitee is needed.
This was sort of a haphazard post, but my thoughts are still turning on how to link all of this together....