4 ms·

We don't have to stumble around blind here. Philosophy has long pondered the nature of language. A more recent idea is that a language as we think of it - Engli

We don't have to stumble around blind here. Philosophy has long pondered the nature of language. A more recent idea is that a language as we think of it - English, French, etc. - does not exist per se; rather we engage in "games" with each other which are languages in themselves. For example, when I buy something from a shop I am playing the "purchase an item at the cashier stand" game. Both the cashier and myself know all the valid moves in the game - they say the price, I provide a method of payment, etc. Some of these moves involve use of a limited subset of English words, but even if I'm in a foreign country where the cashier doesn't speak English we can usually make it work. This interaction is a language in itself. If I were to walk up to the cashier and try to play the "negotiate salary for a full-time position" game, only confusion would result - I would be speaking the wrong language, even though I'm emitting sounds which we both find familiar. Much confusion and anguish in the world results from people playing the wrong language game with each other - for example, one person playing the "venting frustrations" game while another plays the "provide advice" game. In this analysis, the "explain quantum phenomena" game is just a language where the rules are especially strange and prone to pitfalls. Deploying vocabulary from mathematics, a system with very well-defined and mutually-understood rules, enables us to navigate this space.

dfischer 6y ago
Yes, I see humanity engaging in games and LARPing as an interaction between those who are aware of the game being defined by arbitrary rules, and those who don’t. Most don’t realize it’s arbitrary. I’ve thought about what you said recently and it comes down to “well-defined” being relative. Usually to those that are defining it. It’s not objective. Additionally that’s enforcing or coercing a game unto others that they may not wish to engage with or may not be able to conceptualize it. Some people prefer characteristics over others. Have predispositions to likings and not likings. Using a language is in of itself agreeing to a game. If a thing requires consent of will to proceed as a rule, it’s a game. Language, or any system of rules would be part of agreeing to a confined space of possibilities and “game-space” Interesting to ponder nonetheless at a different abstraction. I keep trying to go “deeper” behind the language itself, I arrive at signal and then we’re in a puddle of discrete and non discrete values. Fun.
jackcosgrove 6y ago
Growing up my father would often describe a successful person as someone who "knew the lingo" of whatever they were successful at. As a smartass teenager I thought he was oversimplifying things and discounting other factors which didn't involve, what sounded to me like, being a BS artist. Turns out dad was right.
andrewjl 6y ago
An alternative definition is that language is a set of referents to a collectively constructed "picture" of reality. Wilfrid Sellars has done work on this. I say alternative because it shifts the focus away from person-to-person interaction and more towards impersonal social processes that construct what we think of as "objectivity". That's not to say what you're referring to isn't also an important part of the picture so to speak.

dfischer 6y ago

Yes, I see humanity engaging in games and LARPing as an interaction between those who are aware of the game being defined by arbitrary rules, and those who don’t. Most don’t realize it’s arbitrary. I’ve thought about what you said recently and it comes down to “well-defined” being relative. Usually to those that are defining it. It’s not objective. Additionally that’s enforcing or coercing a game unto others that they may not wish to engage with or may not be able to conceptualize it. Some people prefer characteristics over others. Have predispositions to likings and not likings. Using a language is in of itself agreeing to a game. If a thing requires consent of will to proceed as a rule, it’s a game. Language, or any system of rules would be part of agreeing to a confined space of possibilities and “game-space” Interesting to ponder nonetheless at a different abstraction. I keep trying to go “deeper” behind the language itself, I arrive at signal and then we’re in a puddle of discrete and non discrete values. Fun.

jackcosgrove 6y ago

Growing up my father would often describe a successful person as someone who "knew the lingo" of whatever they were successful at. As a smartass teenager I thought he was oversimplifying things and discounting other factors which didn't involve, what sounded to me like, being a BS artist. Turns out dad was right.

andrewjl 6y ago

An alternative definition is that language is a set of referents to a collectively constructed "picture" of reality. Wilfrid Sellars has done work on this. I say alternative because it shifts the focus away from person-to-person interaction and more towards impersonal social processes that construct what we think of as "objectivity". That's not to say what you're referring to isn't also an important part of the picture so to speak.