In Essence

Ülle Pärli 2011

“It is still quite clear that proper name that signifies a unique, autonomous entity, be it the individual or a certain segment of the world around him/her, is not comparable to the general name taken into account in the semantic meaning — in order for a general name to become a proper name, it must forget its semantic meaning.”

Ernst Cassirer 1945

“Language is a ‘symbolic form.’ It consists of symbols, and symbols are no part of our physical world. They belong to an entirely different universe of discourse. Natural things and symbols cannot be brought to the same denominator. Linguistics is a part of semiotics, not of physics.”

C.S. Peirce
1897

“An indexical word, such as a proper noun or demonstrative or selective pronoun, has force to draw the attention of the listener to some hecceity common to the experience of speaker and listener. By a hecceity, I mean, some element of existence which, not merely by the likeness between its different apparitions, but by an inward force of identity, manifesting itself in the continuity of its apparition throughout time and in space, is distinct from everything else, and is thus fit (as it can in no other way be) to receive a proper name or to be indicated as this or that.”

George Herbert Mead
1934

"The 'I' is the response of the organism to the attitudes of the others; the 'me' is the organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes... The 'I' of this moment is present in the 'me' of the next moment... The self is essentially a social process going on with these two distinguishable phases. If it did not have these two phases there could not be conscious responsibility, and there would be nothing novel in experience."

Nina Arutyunova
1998

“Linguistic competence with regard to names that relate to the world is different, in principle, from words that pertain to human thinking, their system of concepts. In order to operate with names that lead the addressee to the objects of reality, one must know how to find one’s bearing in the world; in order to operate with semantic predicates (attributive words), one must find one’s bearing among the ways of thinking about the world. In the first case, one must be familiar with reality, in the second case — with the expressed system of linguistic concepts. In the first case one must know the word’s relation to the object, in the second case — understand the word’s meaning. The usage of concrete names is determined by the ontology of the world, but the usage of semantic predicates — gnoseologically.”

Joel Parthemore 2014

“...the apparently static nature of concepts is an illusion; concepts are in a state of constant and – if often only incremental – movement and change. They are in a constant state of... being brought forth as the conceptual agent interacts with her environment.Though their superficial appearance is of stability, their underlying nature is of fluidity... they must be this way because, at the same time that they must be able to apply across unboundedly many contexts, to do so they must adapt to fit each new context – since each new context is, in one way or another, unlike any that came before. So there is a tension and a balance between stability and change. Too much stability, and concepts cease to be relevant, because they cannot adapt; the conceptual frame-works of which they form part cease to function as conceptual frameworks. Too much change, and the regularity that is their outward hallmark gets lost.”

Last Updated 24.10.31