How valid is it to refer to "fundamentals", "origins" etc. how are they to be judged?

Particularly, consider e.g.

Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

Now, to claim "the origin" suggests that it's a foundational basis, right?

However, I'm unsure as to whether Darwin for example was able to demonstrate that it's in fact the origin and logically speaking "the only origin there is".

Could it then be considered "professional" that one'd avoid using terms that make/imply claims that cannot be supported?

Darwin could have called the Origin of Species as "A Study on Species"?

It's possible that "big words" are used to claim unwarranted weight.


More particularly,

Consider the social and time-relative aspect of truth. Then to say something is fundamental requires that it's such regardless of the people and the time (and place). But is such ever possible?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Conifold, Frank Hubeny, Mark Andrews, Eliran, L.M. Student Nov 14 at 21:47

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    According to the dictionary, origin comes from Latin oriri, arise, be born, be descended, receive life, so Darwin's book was aptly named. I am not sure what "foundational basis" means, or why "origin" would suggest it specifically, as opposed to any generic kind of lineage. Fundamental does not mean "regardless of the people and the time (and place)" either, that would be universal or objective. And "is objective possible?" is not an answerable question for SE, that's a perennial question on which volumes and volumes are written. – Conifold Nov 8 at 22:29

I feel Darwin was justified in the use of his title but he was not a metaphysician. 'Origin' for him was not a fundamental term. The origin of species is not the origin of everything but his concern was biology.

Metaphysics uniquely deals with what is true and false at all times and places and here it is not only possible but necessary to discuss fundamental truths. The problem is only that these truths are arrived at by logical analysis and, as Aristotle notes, logic cannot prove truth since the world may not obey the rules. So metaphysics produces inarguable logical truths but the interpretation of our results is another matter.

It is a well-known result of logic, for instance, that all selective conclusions about the world-as-a-whole are logically absurd, but it remains a personal choice as to whether we believe they are false. The only certain method for establishing fundamental truths is to throw away the maps and go look at the facts but although many claim to have done so there is in logic no way to prove this is possible.

You suggest 'It's possible that "big words" are used to claim unwarranted weight.' It's a common approach for an academic book title and examples are plentiful. It can make all the difference to sales. Many academic titles are astonishing for their unfulfilled claims and many would not meet the requirements of the Trade Description Act. But the needs of marketing are understood and considerable leeway is granted.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.