roydop wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:58 pm
The strictly materialistic, dualistic, and antagonistic "thing"/"nothing" model presented by the English language, is incorrect. The "thing"/"nothing" model is rife with paradox and these paradoxes are flashing "ERROR" signs
This points out the problem and then fixes it:
https://www.nonconceptuality.org/1-fund ... of-reality
Some errors in the essay.
1) Thing is not presented as the fundamental constituent of reality. Languages are not monolithic models of reality. They include all sorts of models. They are diverse and not tightly organized.
2) 'Some' is not plural. It represents an unknown quality. (Some idiot took my rake. Some lucky guy is going to get to marry you.) Yes, it can ALSO be used as a plural determiner.
3) 'Nothing' is generally used and was originally used to mean nothing relevent, nothing that we could find. You can't treat language like some kind of failed math equation. Language is filled with tropes and approximations, it is not always literal.
4) You then claim that thing is necessarily materialistic. Nope. It can be happily used by people to mean non-material things. I think there is a ghost in there. I checked, there's nothing there. (meaning, nothing that would make noises like a ghost including a ghost) Language is flexible and yes, contains all sorts of contradictions because, get this, words change meaning in different contexts. Further the word itself meant fairly abstract things, to do with assemblies and court cases. IOW yes with physical but also conceptual components.
5) You call this the fundamental model of reality in English. But you have no ground for assuming that thing words are fundamental. English also includes words for all sorts of things considered non-material. And, again, English does not have one model running in it. It has dualisms (I mean, look at your own chart in the essay, with a nice set of dualisms ALL IN ENGLISH). Spirit vs. Matter goes way back. There are all sorts of models and metaphors built into English (and other languages). Materialism is not a dualism, it's a monism.
6) I found the next section almost unintelligible. If this is meant as an argument, it is missing many, many steps. If it is meant as an inspiring sermon of some kind, it doesn't contradict that category, but it needs to be clearer.
So far we are finding this mixed set of models useful.