surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:33 am
All language is conception and so it is impossible to avoid this unless one chooses not to describe anything at all
I am not saying we have to avoid it. I am saying that the distinctions you draw (e.g the taxonomy you invent) is yours.
I need not cut up my mind into the concepts you have cut up your mind into.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:33 am
Would it be better not to have language as a means of communication or to have it but to accept its limitations
Would you rather be an object incapable of any thought simply existing as a thought less thing with zero self awareness
Everyone and everything in existence can not exceed their actual limitations and there is nothing to be done about this
We use the tools we have as best we can because that is all we can do with them
False dichotomy. I never argued against language. I am merely pointing out the pitfalls and assumptions you are making for language to work.
You have the concepts of objective/subjective. I know how to use them, but that's not how I categorize my mind.
And so IF you insist on error-free communication, and IF errors have grave consequences then you need to make sure that communication is in fact accurate. And so if you insist on precision - you need to be aware of all the possible ways communication fails and avoid them. Actively.
Merely assuming that a statement is "true" is of no use if it's actually false. Some errors are unavoidable. But some errors aren't.
Which is why consensus-building is literally a science. A computer science.