Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Language to Philosophers

VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
black_88
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 1:00:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course it does. Actually, some philosophers thought that language is in the very heart of philosophy (Wittgenstein).
"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 3:12:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

Yes, a good command of language allows philosophers to say exactly what they mean, even when explaining complex ideas. I think it's especially important for philosophers to use precise language, because much of the time they are dealing with abstract concepts - concepts which must be understood in terms of words alone, since they have no concrete existence on which one can fall back on.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 8:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.

Obviously philosophy will end in death regardless if you know or know not god. We all end up dying. I have yet to hear of an immortal being. Do name me one who is still alive today.

However philosophy is an idea that can be immortalize even if the philosopher fears not of god. Eg. Karl Marx
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 9:15:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.

How can wisdom be evil?
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 9:35:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 9:15:11 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.

How can wisdom be evil?

Wisdom (sophia) is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight, with good intentions.

You sir, has just proven why language is so important to philosophers XD
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 7:57:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.

Again, what if the whole of his philosophy was conveyed in simple terms and symbols?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 8:32:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 7:57:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.

Again, what if the whole of his philosophy was conveyed in simple terms and symbols?

You have yet to address the impact of a simple sentence with poor grammar. Vocabulary would be an even greater issue.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 8:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 8:32:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/18/2014 7:57:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.

Again, what if the whole of his philosophy was conveyed in simple terms and symbols?

You have yet to address the impact of a simple sentence with poor grammar. Vocabulary would be an even greater issue.

Not necessarily, I'll try to give an example:

A) God=omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
B) Universe=omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
C) God=Universe.

Simple grammar, and rather simple vocab. The idea can still be understood. It is an affirmation of the pantheistic position, a rather simplistic one, I'll admit, but that is something else completely.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 8:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 8:32:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/18/2014 7:57:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.

Again, what if the whole of his philosophy was conveyed in simple terms and symbols?

You have yet to address the impact of a simple sentence with poor grammar. Vocabulary would be an even greater issue.

Not necessarily, I'll try to give an example:

A) God = omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
B) Universe = omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
C) God = Universe.

Simple grammar, and rather simple vocab. The idea can still be understood. It is an affirmation of the pantheistic position, a rather simplistic one, I'll admit, but that is something else completely.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 9:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 8:45:05 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/18/2014 8:32:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/18/2014 7:57:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:38:33 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:33:49 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:16:41 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 8:13:34 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:08:44 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 7:40:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

While I would be inclined to agree, I can conceive of a world in which philosophers could discuss a wide variety of subjects using only a few words and signs and symbols like =, +. -, etc. Why not? And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?

How punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence
Let"s eat, mommy.
Let"s eat mommy.

See the difference?

Not at all.

Now, if you're done with the condescension you might care to actually address the point I made. I did not say that there was no need for grammar, I said that there was no need for it to be overtly complex. Simple grammar would be sufficient. I believe punctuation fits into that.

pardon me but you did mention this "And if a philosopher's grammar and vocabulary is poor, what does that have to do with his ideas?"

Exactly, "poor" not "very poor" or "non-existent". And again what has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher?

If you want to argue semantics with me, I would define poor as "not good". And being unable to punctuate a sentence correctly would clearly be "not good".
What has that got to do with the ideas of the philosopher? Nothing.
But what is the impact when a philosopher tries to spread his ideas with poor english? Everything.

Again, what if the whole of his philosophy was conveyed in simple terms and symbols?

You have yet to address the impact of a simple sentence with poor grammar. Vocabulary would be an even greater issue.

Not necessarily, I'll try to give an example:

A) God = omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
B) Universe = omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
C) God = Universe.

Simple grammar, and rather simple vocab. The idea can still be understood. It is an affirmation of the pantheistic position, a rather simplistic one, I'll admit, but that is something else completely.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

In simple terms,
"us"=plural
"our"=plural
Christianity=polytheism.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 9:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 8:49:04 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.

Obviously philosophy will end in death regardless if you know or know not god. We all end up dying. I have yet to hear of an immortal being. Do name me one who is still alive today.

However philosophy is an idea that can be immortalize even if the philosopher fears not of god. Eg. Karl Marx

Jesus Christ is still alive today. He conqered death Karl Marx is probably burning in Hell; I don't thing Karl Marx ever repentd and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and got saved from Hell. Philosophies that do not fear God will be confined in Hell forever. If your philosphy does not start with fearing God, it will perish with you in the fire of Hell. One day God will stop it from spreading, and all who hold godless philosophy will be confined in the Lake of Fire where only the smoke of their torments will rise forever.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 6:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 9:05:50 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:49:04 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:42:03 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:40:30 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:37:39 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 8:25:39 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:32:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
Regardless of how well one's command of english is in the mathematics field, it doesn't really matter as most points (if not all) are proven through mathematical formulas. However as philosophers use words to prove their points, I personally believe that to be a philosopher, one must have a good command of the language which includes vocabulary, grammar and etc. What do you guys think?

I think that if your philosophy does not start with fearing God, it's good for nothing but death.

In what way does religion have to do with philosophy or language? Philosophy is NOT a subset of religion. I would agree that they do intersect sometimes. But philosophy is definitely NOT a subset of religion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Philosophy apart from knowing God is evil wisdom and will only end in death.

Obviously philosophy will end in death regardless if you know or know not god. We all end up dying. I have yet to hear of an immortal being. Do name me one who is still alive today.

However philosophy is an idea that can be immortalize even if the philosopher fears not of god. Eg. Karl Marx

Jesus Christ is still alive today. He conqered death Karl Marx is probably burning in Hell; I don't thing Karl Marx ever repentd and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and got saved from Hell. Philosophies that do not fear God will be confined in Hell forever. If your philosphy does not start with fearing God, it will perish with you in the fire of Hell. One day God will stop it from spreading, and all who hold godless philosophy will be confined in the Lake of Fire where only the smoke of their torments will rise forever.

And where is this Jesus Christ today? does he know how to use facebook? I would really want to post on his wall.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...