Renee Descartes's (pr. Day-kart) position is simply, "I think, therefore I am". He was saying because I can think of something or about something or about myself, I can objectively conclude. I can say what Is. I can be assured that it actually is because I pointed. It exists in the way I see it because I see it that way. There's a joke that he put Descartes before Dehorse. But alas, his idea has been left aside due to the notion that Descarte's notion was not in fact confirmation of objective reality, but merely of human perception. "I perceive therefore I perceive", is the truer statement. Ludwig Wittgenstein's position was less aimed at what is and more aimed at the processes by which we conclude what is. It's hard to find a broader or more helpful term for his work than the Linguistic Philosophy or the philosophy of language. Put simply, function determined meaning/location/value, and that language is relative to experience. One example is ...