Question On Word -- "Categorically."
BMCT2010
I am unsure of whether it applies that there is a difference between
saying that a series of somethings (for example, a stack of papers)
have been categorized, and using "categorically" to imply that two
subjects are separate in adjective form. Is there a distinction
between the use of the word in the following two forms of applying
it?
1. The stack of documents was sorted categorically.
2. The two premises were not categorically similar.
Please beware of my ignorance, and thanks for any answers.
mm
wrote:
>I have heard the word "categorically" used in many different ways, but
>I am unsure of whether it applies that there is a difference between
>saying that a series of somethings (for example, a stack of papers)
>have been categorized, and using "categorically" to imply that two
>subjects are separate in adjective form. Is there a distinction
>between the use of the word in the following two forms of applying
>it?
>
>1. The stack of documents was sorted categorically.
The stack was sorted by category.
>2. The two premises were not categorically similar.
Even if I knew what this means, I wouldn't know what it means.
What were they not?
They were not premises in the same category? Like both premises about
how much load a bridge could hold?
Or they were not premises that exemplified different categories?
Maybe others know, but not me. What would make something
categorically similar?
This problem is intensified because uncategorically is usually just
used as an intensifier. He denied the permit uncategorically. Maybe
that once meant he had didn't need categories to deny the permit, but
who would? Any the confusion about the meaning of uncategorically I
think bleeds over into confusion about what categorically means. I
think that's why I never hear the word. (though this time I'm not
saying it doesn't exist.)
>Please beware of my ignorance, and thanks for any answers.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Tronscend
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> skrev i melding
news:pt98j5954dk77t16k...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:42:41 -0800 (PST), BMCT2010 <BMCT...@AOL.com>
> wrote:
>
......
>>2. The two premises were not categorically similar.
>
> Even if I knew what this means, I wouldn't know what it means.
This usage is a spillover from philosophy, but there are several candidates.
>
> What were they not?
>
> They were not premises in the same category? Like both premises about
> how much load a bridge could hold?
This would be "ordinary language" or Wittgensteinian "category error",
as explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
>
> Or they were not premises that exemplified different categories?
>
> Maybe others know, but not me. What would make something
> categorically similar?
>
> This problem is intensified because uncategorically is usually just
> used as an intensifier. He denied the permit uncategorically. Maybe
> that once meant he had didn't need categories to deny the permit, but
> who would?
This one is Kantian:
In his exposition of Logic, he describes the degree of certainty of any
given proposition,
its so-called modality (apodictic, problematic, etc.).
Each of these modalities has (have ...?) a corresponding form of
propositions. While the problematic
is connected to the hypothetical, the apodictic, the absolutely true, is
expressed in the
categorical form.
Problematic issues are issues that would be resolved differently by
different parties,
according to circumstances; hence there is no "correct" solution.
Answers to apodictic or assertoric issues are correct whatever the
circumstances, or conditions,
i.e. unconditionally, absolutely, in and by themselves, no matter what...
etc.
HTH.
T