YES! Not only has he successfully wrecked the notion that “words can have absolute meaning”

YES! Not only has he successfully wrecked the notion that “words can have absolute meaning” but ALSO wrecked the notion that words can have a hierarchical deriving of meaning FROM each other because to do so, you end up with an absolute, with the ultimate absolute being God, which we nowadays unsatisfactorally substitute with “Nothing”: Same attempt of concreteness but a replacement of “nothing” for “God”.

HAH! Loving this.

“The classical theory is inextricable from its commitment that the
meaning of a word is an accompanying concept in the mind. The
implausibility of that underlying account of meaning makes it im-
possible to repair the classical theory. Further, the classical theory,
especially in Cajetan’s exposition, (1498: ch.ll, no. 123), makes
assumptions about the priority of meanings over one another that
can be supported only on doubtful metaphysical premises, for
instance, that ‘exists’, applied to God, is ‘prior’ in meaning to
‘exists’, applied to creatures because the being of God is ontologi-
cally prior to that of creatures (Aquinas, In. I Sent., 22,1,2 c.)”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven − 4 =

Leave a Reply