> An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property
> of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff.
> "Bravery" is not relative to a particular experience, as say a concrete noun like "strawberry" is.
> This IS the context of your term "relativizably" . That the term is predicated on a concrete
> relative meaning. One that is relative to a particular experience that most all may agree to.
> Abstract nouns do not have a corresponding relative experience and are not agreed apon
> and are mostly subjective in meaning. What is brave to you may not be brave to another.
> This is 2nd grade stuff.
> Consequently Tuuka, when one uses concrete nouns in logical strings of meaning they bear
> a consistancy while abstact nouns do not. THATS why they are not used in analytical philosophy
> not because they are not "allowed" but because they yield inconsistancies in meaning.
If we are determining, whether a predicate is used nonrelativizably, it is irrelevant whether it looks like an abstract or a concrete noun. Nonrelativizability is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the way in which it is used.
That is what I'm trying to get accross about nouns and how they are used as subjects. A predicate is that
which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition. Abstract nouns, being the subject of a proposition, arenotoriously difficult to affirm because it is not relative to a concrete particular.
This is what you are basicly saying about your personal term "relativizability".
Tuuka, I apologize for coming off snarky, but it does not seem we are able to string together a meaningful
dialog together. I'm going to have to back out of it for now.