User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-08 at 6:42 PM UTC
-
2018-11-08 at 6:47 PM UTC
-
2018-11-09 at 8:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What exactly do you mean by saying philosophy is "built on language"?
Exactly what it sounds like.Are natural sciences like, say, biology somehow not "built on language"?
No, they are not. They used to be, but terms quickly acquired precise and universal definitions, and quantitative techniques were introduced so that all biologists could understand each other and interpret each other's studies in a cross-cultural manner. In addition we have biochemical techniques like genomics, and easily peer reviewed techniques like the double blind study.Why?
Because language is a non-fungible and imprecise thing?
Imagine someone like Walter Kauffman translating German to English, and taking seriously the end result? -
2018-11-09 at 9:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Majestic 12 : The UFO Science Task Force Exactly what it sounds like.
What it sounds like is something that could also be said about any of the natural sciences.No, they are not. They used to be, but terms quickly acquired precise and universal definitions, and quantitative techniques were introduced so that all biologists could understand each other and interpret each other's studies in a cross-cultural manner. In addition we have biochemical techniques like genomics, and easily peer reviewed techniques like the double blind study.
It's not too hard to find terms which do not have universal definitions in the natural sciences, it generally does not hinder their progress. And conversely, most modern philosophers use technical and pretty precise language. There's plenty of jargon with very precise meaning in philosophy, although I don't know why that's really the hurdle a field of study needs to pass to not be "mostly bullshit", to use your terms.Because language is a non-fungible and imprecise thing?
What does fungibility have to do with it? I agree natural language is fairly imprecise in casual usage, but just as the natural sciences tend to establish stricter terminology (although not wholly absent of ambiguity, and not always with universal consensus), so does modern, and especially analytic, philosophy have conventions and specialized definitions that make pretty unambiguous what's being discussed in a given philosophical work. -
2018-11-09 at 9:45 AM UTCoh great more "mental exercise"
-
2018-11-09 at 10:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It's not too hard to find terms which do not have universal definitions in the natural sciences, it generally does not hinder their progress.
1 TRON per example you cite.And conversely, most modern philosophers use technical and pretty precise language.
Those who WANT to be understood, who are the minority.There's plenty of jargon with very precise meaning in philosophy, although I don't know why that's really the hurdle a field of study needs to pass to not be "mostly bullshit", to use your terms.
I don't believe the meanings are "precise" in all senses, although I would love if you would disabuse me of my position.so does modern, and especially analytic, philosophy have conventions and specialized definitions that make pretty unambiguous what's being discussed in a given philosophical work.
I never heard of this. Are such definitions universally agreed upon, or are they proposed by some jedi no one ever heard of before in order to advance his ethnic self interest?
"Colonisation means white people, goyim". -
2018-11-09 at 10:47 AM UTCthis is what a physical representation of pholosophy looks like :
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-10 at 12:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Majestic 12 : The UFO Science Task Force 1 TRON per example you cite.
The exchange rate is what? 2 cents? I'll pass but here's a nice example: biology, literally the science which studies life, does not have an exact and universally agreed upon definition for the word "life". Psychologists have long argued about what "psychology" actually is and the working definition has varied across time, even within the 20th century. From my own field, central terms like "algorithm", and "effective process" have resisted formal definition which captures their use, many terms like "alignment", "lock", "network" can refer to a number of different things depending on context. All scientists communicate their work in language and have to deal with ambiguity, generally they're successful, and philosophy operates under the same conditions.Those who WANT to be understood, who are the minority.
How have you come to that conclusion? How much of the field have you read? How did you decide if the authors wanted to be understood or not?
Would you agree that philosophy which is conducted by people who do want to be understood, and make efforts to be understood, are doing valid work?I don't believe the meanings are "precise" in all senses, although I would love if you would disabuse me of my position.
What senses of "precise" are you thinking of? Have you read the work of someone like Quine? Or maybe more accessible, Russell?I never heard of this. Are such definitions universally agreed upon, or are they proposed by some jedi no one ever heard of before in order to advance his ethnic self interest?
Yes, there is usually fairly broad consensus on the meaning of specialized jargon in philosophy. Much of the work of analytic philosophy is in taking ambiguous constructs in every day language and attempting to understand and formalize them precisely. For example "free will" is a common expression, but philosophical discourse treats "libertarian" and "compatibility" notions of free will separately, each of which have a widely understood and distinct meaning. -
2018-11-10 at 3:03 AM UTC
-
2018-11-10 at 3:07 AM UTC
-
2018-11-10 at 3:15 AM UTC
-
2018-11-10 at 3:32 AM UTClemonparty is ROOTS
-
2018-11-10 at 3:34 AM UTC
-
2018-11-10 at 3:39 AM UTCfound this looking for "Totse Forever" in image/
-
2018-11-10 at 3:41 AM UTCOn a more serious and recent issue, i feel people have hacked into my Rideshare acount.. and today some psycho was threatening me .
fuck is wrong with the youth today. Sheesh! maybe their vets of Afganistan? high tempered and salted as fuck. "CALM DOWN" -
2018-11-10 at 3:48 AM UTCPhilosophers pretend to lead us back to reality on ways paved with more words of higher abstraction, like devils promising to lead us to Heaven. If the devil is the Father of Lies, words are surely the Mother. Paradise is a myth about a preverbal Consciousness, before men created words and subsequently mistook the symbol (idol) for reality (God); the Fall of Man and his Expulsion is the consequence of worshipping verbally fashioned images. The nemesis of abstraction is that the symbol becomes the reality, and the individual differences in the real world are occulted behind the Veils of Maja.
-
2018-11-10 at 3:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Philosophers pretend to lead us back to reality on ways paved with more words of higher abstraction, like devils promising to lead us to Heaven. If the devil is the Father of Lies, words are surely the Mother. Paradise is a myth about a preverbal Consciousness, before men created words and subsequently mistook the symbol (idol) for reality (God); the Fall of Man and his Expulsion is the consequence of worshipping verbally fashioned images. The nemesis of abstraction is that the symbol becomes the reality, and the individual differences in the real world are occulted behind the Veils of Maja.
Where'd you find this one?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-10 at 4:02 AM UTC
-
2018-11-10 at 7:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Oh I am thoroughly familiar with the classic Lemon Party photograph.
It truly is a legendary piece of Internet history.
Old dude's doing it is as natural a thing as anything else the Internet has produced, if not moreso.
the though question is which one of them should represent aristotle, socrates and plato. -
2018-11-10 at 8:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny the though question is which one of them should represent aristotle, socrates and plato.
Socrates is obviously the one on his back. Plato is the one sucking dick, representing his unending desire to pull on Socrate's skin and fellate his persona, if not his philosophy. The one kissing him is Aristotle both on account of him being the most attractive of the bunch and also because he actually loves Socrates and his philosophy, not just his image (phallus), and is the true successor to the western philosophical tradition.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
