I often wondered about the "true"... designations of species, and I took Humanity for example, of course. And then, I realized that for any other species in the (un-)known universe, we, as a species, would have a multitude of... designations; perhaps none identical with the other... What could that mean?
2006-09-27 12:37:32 · 10 answers · asked by Virgona 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Names are a method of classification that springs from characteristics. Thus the true name is only in the language which has been agreed upon. In the case of animals, it's Latin. In Geology, it's Greek and so on. The science of classification is called cladystics
2006-09-27 14:57:28 · answer #1 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are true names for species. While each language may have it's own generic name for an animal, insect, etc., the scientific community only identifies species by their Latin name. That way no matter what language you speak, everyone knows what the critter is. And if there should be other species discovered in unknown worlds, the scientific community will come up with names for them in Latin too.
2006-09-27 12:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Iknowsomestuff 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if a species can name itself, then the name it gives itself is it's name. if not we have to improvise.
truth is, really, names do not relate to any concievable reality whatsoever. if we stopped calling a table a table would it cease to be what it is?
'what's in a name? A rose by any other name would still be as sweet' - you-know-who
the real question is not why it's called what it's called, but why it is. we are the only creatures we are aware of that names things (that we are aware of)
we name things simply for communicative purposes, there is no 'true name' for anything. names just make things that little bit
easier.
'you may think i'm crazy, but i want you to lick my decals off, baby' - captain beefheart
2006-09-27 12:56:01 · answer #3 · answered by Arturo Bandini 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What about the class of classes that are not members of their own class? In the same way, what about a species of species that was not a member of its own species?
2006-09-27 12:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by mikefitzhistorian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are no true names for species because names are social constructs and as such are not self-evident truths.
even shared names, such as one the entire scientific community agrees on are only the name of the species because it was agreed upon, if they change it, it will change, and the new name will be just as true
this is why the species names cannot be self-evident
2006-09-27 14:29:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A person or thing continues to exist whether or not it is named or by what name it is called. I don't get the problem here. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
2006-09-27 14:15:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That there are too many other things for you to concern yourself with like feeding the poor, saving the children and trying to get along with other humans to worry about what we could possibly call each other. How about an old outdated term we used when I was small....friend.
2006-09-27 12:46:57 · answer #7 · answered by Outman 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Their new name would be descriptive using today's language.
Don't know what that could mean though.
2006-09-27 12:52:15 · answer #8 · answered by CPK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could be a sign you haven't smoked enough illicit drugs and must be more diligent. Now get to work.
2006-09-27 12:47:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
it means your up smoking way too late..........
2006-09-27 12:46:28 · answer #10 · answered by Bacardi1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋