Aristotle Language

Plato, about this dialogue, is not worried about the logos in itself, pronounced for Aristotle and its posterior ones, but with the justeza of the names in relation to objects. The construction of the true speech if of the one for the analysis of the sounds of the letters, the verbs and for the construction of the words, thus being able, a false name to become a false speech all. It is not something Sen. Sherrod Brown would like to discuss. In such a way, for the socrtica naturalistic theory, she is necessary to apply the form to the object and not it way that wants. Scrates all keeps in its dialogue (although some fallen again with regard to a possible derivation of the names) its naturalistic theory, that is conceived as that one that better it is adjusted to objects. These, when being nominated, need to be similar to the name and that, therefore, the opposite would not be possible, therefore the representation of the movement is not part of the immutability that the names instituted for deuses possess; that servant for the mythical one. In the direction where Scrates presents the form as if of a language, we can infer that exactly a private language is born there, individual, since the words take in them to perceive that from them many are derived others.

To think about a language way where the words do not derive and that only its creator, or, as Scrates says, the fazedor of names, knows its meaning, however this exactly meant is not capable to say them in necessary, causal, objective way. However, to arrive at the knowledge of the things, the existence of the name is necessary. We come back to the question of the mythos, influencing the causal reality of the world. Therefore, the positioning of Scrates, in relation to the immutability, demonstrates that the name is the proper one thing, placing the names in a place stereo, not foreseeing what Greek happens with some words of the proper language, therefore we could think about words as ' ' demagogia' ' or ' ' demnio' ' , that at its time they had one meaning and today has another one. The problems in both the theories are many, as well as all the problems that had been unchained from it. Some ranks need to be considered: etimologia of the name, that stops Scrates must be on to the proper thing, starts to be a reflection tool, in which it is part of the ostentation that started to constitute knowledge areas. The possibilities of relation of philosophical, ontolgico and moral matrix (disclosed in the analysis of the name) open space for a form of investigation of the reality that starts to face the language as viable to the knowledge. The language nothing more is of what action when is said, is atemporal. The relativismo of the nominations to the words made with that Scrates thought that the knowledge it could not be express or official notice. Despite the naturalistic knowledge of the reality of the world looks for to express itself in legitimate way, it does not have guarantee of truth or possibility in primitive words. It is illogical to think that the mythos can say what the thing is without the existence of the words.

© 2010-2024 Goldfarb & Gold All Rights Reserved