On Philosophical Use of Words and Accuracy in Meanings

Philosophical concerns are more than problems. Language enables things to be said about anything. Perfection in language formation may be grammatically possible however meanings and referent object content can be in error as may additional constructions.

Any honest intellectual would agree that the green cheese of the moon will fall to the Earth thus feeding us all’ is amusing yet has some obvious difficulties with veracity for most circumstances of use.

I believe that logical positivism brought some efforts to limit language to objectivive, scientific criteria, however Quine’s ‘The Two Dogmas of Empiricism‘ brought an end to that. ‘Ontological Relativism’ brought out the idea of lexicons for ontology with dedicated meanings. For example, the vocabulary of the home builder ontology is not the same as that of the government bureaucrat ontology, nor that of a non-academic philosopher. The meanings and reference ontology of Dawkinian atheists of a bio-evolutionary orientation is not that of philosophically minded theists; they tend to talk past one another. One must clarify one’s word lexicon and consider what users will share its meanings for various projects. Words are a kind of address for meanings.

Plotinus believed that The One had no need for questions because omniscient Being is not uncertain about anything, yet philosophically minded people are not omniscient and have questions about Universe and etc that are not answered satisfactorily.

One might conjecture that the problem with science and cosmology is that the formulations and equations are faulty in a way comparable to that of philosophical problems, and certainly perfect formulations of questions understood well would leave no problems unless new ones were conceived, yet that next Einstein ++ upgrade is late in arriving to provide the correct equations for absolutely everything that might be thought of meaningfully in science and cosmology.