If people here were to take this issue like they take things related to science, my participation in the discussion here would have probably reflected on my thinking similar to how participation in a marathon but finishing it a year later would reflect on my athletic ability. Anyway, better late than never. It turned out that there is even a shorter and more general path than the one I used in post 244 to argue that the word "free" should apply on the state as a whole not internally. I may need to come later to elaborate further (Like I pointed out earlier, I shouldn't be considered done arguing here until the end of the amicus curie filing period as I calculated it to be at August 13 or around that) but I do not want to postpone this core.
The word "free" should apply on the state only as a whole because capitalizing the word"state" implies recognition that connects the parts of the state to have the state as an existing thing. Without that capitalization we would only have the parts of the state required to recognize the existence of the state as a thing but without the recognition connecting those parts and therefore the word "free" can also apply internally. This applies everywhere in this language. Anything, and more obviously anything comprised of parts, does not exist as a thing without the recognition connecting those parts and I think that this the core meaning behind capitalization. In other words, in languages with capitalization like this, the recognition of a thing, itself is seen as a thing that is required to exist for the former to exist. In other words once more, these languages do not see mental existence of a thing as following world existence of what comprise that same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment