5 ms·

From Paul Graham's "How to Do Philosophy": "Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? De

From Paul Graham's "How to Do Philosophy": "Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by 'free.' Do abstract ideas exist? Depends what you mean by 'exist.'" Are video games art? Depends on what you mean by "art". I realize that this is not a particularly insightful comment, and that anyone who thinks about this issue for more than 15 seconds must understand this. What I don't understand, and what I hope someone can explain to me, is why it is fruitful to continue this discussion after having this realization.

maldusiecle 10y ago
Most important ideas have various definitions. "Beauty" or "virtue" or "freedom" or "love." It seems a bit...misguided...to assume that none of those things are worth discussing for such a reason.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  There's a difference between discussing ideas and discussing semantics. This seems firmly in the realm of a mere semantic argument.
  - ahelwer 10y ago
    Semantic arguments are wrongfully vilified. Philosophy requires precision, and imprecise definitions lead nowhere. At a meta level, it's an interesting question whether we can satisfactorily define any term at all; see the failure of philosophy to adequately define what is and is not science: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      Understanding the precise meaning of words is obviously important to a discussion. My problem with semantic arguments is generally a practical one, not theoretical. I've found arguments over disagreements in definitions of words to either be resolved trivially or ultimately futile. There probably are situations where semantic arguments are worth it to really argue but they seem very seldom. This is just a value judgement on my part so honestly I expect people to disagree
  - maldusiecle 10y ago
    I think once an article begins summarizing Schopenhauer it becomes a bit of a stretch to call it "mere semantics." Maybe you don't like the ideas, but if you think that it has none, you haven't read it carefully.
sidlls 10y ago
The idea that philosophical discussions are driven by discussions of meaning is not insightful because it's practically describing a tautology. Things mean things. Or, I suppose, perhaps, we (whatever that means) impose, impute, or infer meaning. The study of meaning may or may not be important to you. If it is, that's the answer to your request for an explanation. If it's not, then it's not.
smacktoward 10y ago
Because it's self-defeating? It amounts to throwing up your hands and saying that nothing is knowable, which feels like it would be an uncomfortable position for a creative person to hold. Maybe you and I have different definitions of "art", for instance. But by arguing the question we can both come to a deeper understanding, both of what we individually believe art to be and why we hold that belief. The act of interrogating the question forces us to inspect our position more closely than we would do otherwise, which can lead to insights we would otherwise never encounter.
olavk 10y ago
Because we use words when we communicate. So even if it is "just words", words matter.

maldusiecle 10y ago

Most important ideas have various definitions. "Beauty" or "virtue" or "freedom" or "love." It seems a bit...misguided...to assume that none of those things are worth discussing for such a reason.

tdb7893 10y ago
There's a difference between discussing ideas and discussing semantics. This seems firmly in the realm of a mere semantic argument.
- ahelwer 10y ago
  Semantic arguments are wrongfully vilified. Philosophy requires precision, and imprecise definitions lead nowhere. At a meta level, it's an interesting question whether we can satisfactorily define any term at all; see the failure of philosophy to adequately define what is and is not science: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    Understanding the precise meaning of words is obviously important to a discussion. My problem with semantic arguments is generally a practical one, not theoretical. I've found arguments over disagreements in definitions of words to either be resolved trivially or ultimately futile. There probably are situations where semantic arguments are worth it to really argue but they seem very seldom. This is just a value judgement on my part so honestly I expect people to disagree
- maldusiecle 10y ago
  I think once an article begins summarizing Schopenhauer it becomes a bit of a stretch to call it "mere semantics." Maybe you don't like the ideas, but if you think that it has none, you haven't read it carefully.

sidlls 10y ago

The idea that philosophical discussions are driven by discussions of meaning is not insightful because it's practically describing a tautology. Things mean things. Or, I suppose, perhaps, we (whatever that means) impose, impute, or infer meaning. The study of meaning may or may not be important to you. If it is, that's the answer to your request for an explanation. If it's not, then it's not.

smacktoward 10y ago

Because it's self-defeating? It amounts to throwing up your hands and saying that nothing is knowable, which feels like it would be an uncomfortable position for a creative person to hold. Maybe you and I have different definitions of "art", for instance. But by arguing the question we can both come to a deeper understanding, both of what we individually believe art to be and why we hold that belief. The act of interrogating the question forces us to inspect our position more closely than we would do otherwise, which can lead to insights we would otherwise never encounter.

olavk 10y ago

Because we use words when we communicate. So even if it is "just words", words matter.