—“My question concerns technical and scientific language rather than colloquial language: I would like to ask if there is any inclination in English to give the words class and category more or less different meanings or shades of meaning, or are they completely interchangeable in all kinds of use?”— From Elsewhere You CLASSIFY things that exist (Science – referents that exist into a hierarchy) whose organization doesn’t change, and you CATEGORIZE ideas (Philosophy – referents that have meaning into a list) because they can change. So classify(things, hierarchy or order, relatively invariant), vs. categorize(concepts, terms, that might be categorized differently in different contexts). So just as english words have origins in german(commoners, farmers, craftsmen), french(nobility, ruling class, wealthy), Latin and Greek(scholarly or educated classes), English (like all european languages) uses specialized vocabulary for mathematical, philosophical, political/Legal, and scientific classes of vocabulary. English is very ‘precise’ in its use of sets of terms the same way that german is precise in its precisely descriptive terms. Now, do uneducated people conflate terms? All the time. In fact educated people do all the time as well. My favorite examples being the conflation of mathematic (axiomatic), philosophical(rational), and scientific (theoretic), terminology. It’s not uncommon to hear someone make an argument with terms from math, philosophy, and science without having the faintest idea that the terms in each limit the possible properties of argument. For example, True in math and logic is binary(Deductive and Necessary). In philosophy it can be binary(non contradictory), in law it’s ternary(True false and undecidable), in and in science it’s multivalued with False being the only certainty, and truth being little more than an ordinality by triangulation). If someone disagrees with you on usage you can correct them. 😉
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Difference Between Postmodernism and Christianity?
“What is the difference between postmodernism and Christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.” —Curt Doolittle
-
The Difference Between Postmodernism and Christianity?
“What is the difference between postmodernism and Christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.” —Curt Doolittle
-
The Virtuous Cycle of Western Civilization
THE VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION Martial Risk Produces Reward. Opportunity for Reward produces Heroism. Martial Heroism produces Meritocracy. Meritocracy produces Sovereignty. Sovereignty produces Natural Law. Natural law produces markets. Markets produce Prosperity. Prosperity increases competitiveness. Competitiveness decreases martial risk.
-
The Virtuous Cycle of Western Civilization
THE VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION Martial Risk Produces Reward. Opportunity for Reward produces Heroism. Martial Heroism produces Meritocracy. Meritocracy produces Sovereignty. Sovereignty produces Natural Law. Natural law produces markets. Markets produce Prosperity. Prosperity increases competitiveness. Competitiveness decreases martial risk.
-
Consciousness
Well, what we call consciousness: that continuous change in state between perception, search(perception-memory-prediction), focus, impulse, decision, and action – serves almost entirely as ‘the search for opportunities’ for acquisition of the host of things that are valuable to us. It’s not complicated. I am not sure why consciousness is so hard to understand. It’s not. Brains are not gears. Our various charges are affected by momentum, resistance and capacitance, and continuous iteration (echoes) create persistence of perception just as much as our eyes create persistence of vision. That’s consciousness.
We seize opportunities for reward. -
Consciousness
Well, what we call consciousness: that continuous change in state between perception, search(perception-memory-prediction), focus, impulse, decision, and action – serves almost entirely as ‘the search for opportunities’ for acquisition of the host of things that are valuable to us. It’s not complicated. I am not sure why consciousness is so hard to understand. It’s not. Brains are not gears. Our various charges are affected by momentum, resistance and capacitance, and continuous iteration (echoes) create persistence of perception just as much as our eyes create persistence of vision. That’s consciousness.
We seize opportunities for reward. -
The Axes of Political Systems
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.
-
The Axes of Political Systems
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.
-
Civilization Produces Dividends for Descendents (Accumulates Capital).
“Dividends for Descendants” is what civilization really is. Does an act or policy produce it or not? If it doesn’t, it is counter to civilization (does not produce a surplus). – Steve Pender