5 ms·
>Or you can stop making philosophy an exercise in linguistic analysis. Language is the tool we use to ask questions with, not the things we are asking about. "
by aphextron 8y ago
>Or you can stop making philosophy an exercise in linguistic analysis. Language is the tool we use to ask questions with, not the things we are asking about.
"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."
- zepto 8y agoPerhaps that is just wrong.
- dwaltrip 8y agoA large portion of my thought is very much non-linguistic. Visuospatial thoughts are the easiest example. This even happens for things that aren't inherently spatial, like abstract concepts, if there is a useful spatial metaphor.
- ThomPete 8y agoThoughts yes, now try and express those thoughts to get me to agree and you will understand what we are talkingabout.
- dwaltrip 8y agoWill a wink suffice? How about a photograph or a song? Edit: Language is fascinating, of course. However, I find the underlying mental layers that support it to be equally fascinating, if not more so.
- ThomPete 8y agoAre they claims about the world or just expressions?
- omginternets 8y agoWhat's the difference?
- ThomPete 8y agoA wink is just an expression we call a wink. We can then analyze what a wink it philosophically and make claims about it. So one is the experienced phenomena the other is inquiring about that phenoma.
- omginternets 8y agoCan't it be argued that the expression itself is a claim about the state of the world (= "the thing I just said was in jest").
- ThomPete 8y agoIt can but then you are back to subjective interpretation. You can wink, that wink can have meaning or it's just a wink or you got something in your eye. How do you determine what it is without having used language somehow to establish what a wink could mean? And that's just on the surface of the amgiguity.
- zepto 8y agoYou agreeing with him or not has nothing to do with ‘the limits of his world’. It’s almost as though you don’t understand what he is talking about.
- ThomPete 8y agoI understand what he is saying in fact I am the same way. Many of my thoughts are non-verbal. But the second they get expressed into language, philosophical analysis kicks in. You can't express truth though but you can be it (i.e. you can wink)
- zepto 8y agoPhilosophical analysis kicks in when someone chooses to do it and at no other time. Language simply isn’t the limit of anyone’s world. It’s also plainly obvious that humans have access to many other ways of expressing themselves and communicating other than language, and some truth can certainly be expressed.
- ThomPete 8y agoI am not sure what your point is. The second you start claiming things about how the world is through language I can access that and analyze it through ex. a postmodern lens. You can certainly experience all sorts of things that is beyond language to express but then they are that personal experiences and highly subjective. What Objective truth can be expressed through language? If you knew the answer to that one you would win a Nobel price and I would certainly do whatever in my power to make sure you got it cause that would be a big deal and fundamentally change EVERYTHING. Which is why no one has taken me up on the offer to formulate such a truth. It's simply not a useful way to think about what language expresses.
- zepto 8y agoI know you aren’t sure what my point is. That’s because you think your world is limited by language. And now you’re suddenly focussed on ‘objective truth’. Moving the goalposts because it’s obvious that truth can be expressed through means other than language. Why not just admit that language is limited but it’s not the limit of our world, or our expression? Why is that so hard?
- nostalgeek 8y ago> "The limits of my language means the limits of my world." there are many languages and each languages has many medium. There is no limit to communication. In fact we probably don't even speak the same native language, yet here we are communicating with each other.