Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Philosophy is Mere Word Misuse

felixmendelssohn
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 8:08:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think most of the problems in theoretical philosophy are not so profound but rather result from the misuse of language. For example, take the ancient question "why do we exist?" I believe the question is simply unanswerable rather than unsolvable profound. First, consider the word "why". we use why in situations where a statement or fact and be reduced down to its constituent axioms. For example, if someone tell you the the sum of all angle in a triangle is 180, you may ask the person "why" to make him reduce this fact to the 5 postulates of euclidean geometry. asking why does energy conserve is asking for a decomposition of that statement to newtons law. overall, we see that "why" is only applicable to "theorems" and not "laws" or "axioms". for example, asking why 2 lines never meet if the interior angles sum up to 180 is simply nonsense for there can be no why explanation for an axiom. similarly, the fact that we exist is taken as an axiom because how can one prove that he indeed eixsts. and consequently , it is nonsensical to demand a why explanation for our existence.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 8:22:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Greek logic does not compare to Hebrew logic ... 2 completely different logic formats. An axiom does not compare to a law. Euclid's 5th axiom 19th century hyperbolic geometry disproved conclusively.
ommadon
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2018 9:39:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 8:08:18 AM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
I think most of the problems in theoretical philosophy are not so profound but rather result from the misuse of language.

I agree that many problems in philosophy that initially appear to be profound are not so profound, but I also think the reason why these problems exist is more to do with problems in thinking rather than language per se.

For example, take the ancient question "why do we exist?" I believe the question is simply unanswerable rather than unsolvable profound.

"Why?" questions seem to be about cause and effect: what determined or led to this event/situation? It depends on how far back the chain of causation one wants to go before they realise they can't go any further, and they just have to accept things as a given without a further explanation.
Jensvs
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 8:33:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2018 5:24:26 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
what do you mean by Euclid 5th axiom is disproved?

He is talking about non-euclidean geometry, straight lines on a curved surface do meet (think of the lines of longitude on a globe that meet at the poles). This makes the angles of a triangle on a curved surface add up to more or less than 180 degrees.

About your question of philosophy being wordplay: I think there is some truth to that, as (ironically) many philosophers have claimed in the past (e.g. Wittgenstein), especially when it regards foundations or axioms as you put it. However, I would argue philosophy does not claim to argue for axioms, rather, for a long time in history philosophy has tried to answer just those why-questions you find useful by finding axioms on which all of reasoning can rest. Think of Descartes' "I think therefore I am". He didn't argue for that, it is self-evident. But from this axiom he tried to secure our knowledge about the world, making it unshakable.
Questions such as "why do we exist?" are not well-formulated questions and have not had a large impact on philosophy as practiced in the academy.

P.S. Energy conservation is a result of time-translation symmetry in physics, meaning the laws of physics don't change over time (Noether's theorem), not so much Newton's laws.

At 7/29/2018 8:22:04 AM, mosc wrote:
Greek logic does not compare to Hebrew logic ... 2 completely different logic formats. An axiom does not compare to a law. Euclid's 5th axiom 19th century hyperbolic geometry disproved conclusively.

I am very skeptical about this comment though. Logic to my mind is universal and the existence of two different logics seems contradictory (in the sense of basic usage of reasoning, of course there are many logics such as syllogistic logic, propositional logic, modal logic, etc.). Care to expound on how Hebrew logic compares to Greek logic?
felixmendelssohn
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 8:40:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 8:33:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
At 7/29/2018 5:24:26 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
what do you mean by Euclid 5th axiom is disproved?

He is talking about non-euclidean geometry, straight lines on a curved surface do meet (think of the lines of longitude on a globe that meet at the poles). This makes the angles of a triangle on a curved surface add up to more or less than 180 degrees.

I'm aware of non-euclidean geometry. What I wanted him to do was to clarify his use of the word "disproved". The existence of hyperbolic geometry hardly disproves the correctness of theorems belong to Euclidean geometry. It also doesn't disprove Euclid's postulates because those never require any proof.

About your question of philosophy being wordplay: I think there is some truth to that, as (ironically) many philosophers have claimed in the past (e.g. Wittgenstein), especially when it regards foundations or axioms as you put it. However, I would argue philosophy does not claim to argue for axioms, rather, for a long time in history philosophy has tried to answer just those why-questions you find useful by finding axioms on which all of reasoning can rest. Think of Descartes' "I think therefore I am". He didn't argue for that, it is self-evident. But from this axiom he tried to secure our knowledge about the world, making it unshakable.
Questions such as "why do we exist?" are not well-formulated questions and have not had a large impact on philosophy as practiced in the academy.

I admit that I'm not in touch with current philosophical literature so perhaps you could enlighten me on the current trend and direction of theoretical philosophy.
P.S. Energy conservation is a result of time-translation symmetry in physics, meaning the laws of physics don't change over time (Noether's theorem), not so much Newton's laws.

Surely one can always find a more general theory to put previously known truths in a bigger picture. A trivial example would be Fermat's little theorem to Euler's totient function. I always think of conversation of energy as a consequence of how we define energy. Granted that newton's laws presume its constancy over time. Exploited the fact that there are 2 equivalent expressions for F, mg = F = ma. we define one to be integral of negative of the expression on the left and the other one to be the integral of the equivalent expression on the right
U=integral(-- mg dx) and KE = integral (ma dx) so U + KE = int (-F + F) = const

At 7/29/2018 8:22:04 AM, mosc wrote:
Greek logic does not compare to Hebrew logic ... 2 completely different logic formats. An axiom does not compare to a law. Euclid's 5th axiom 19th century hyperbolic geometry disproved conclusively.

I am very skeptical about this comment though. Logic to my mind is universal and the existence of two different logics seems contradictory (in the sense of basic usage of reasoning, of course there are many logics such as syllogistic logic, propositional logic, modal logic, etc.). Care to expound on how Hebrew logic compares to Greek logic?
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 9:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The parallel postulate, also called Euclid's fifth postulate

A line and a dot not on the line. How many lines can be drawn through the dot and remain parallel to the line. Euclid answered ONE.

Why? B/c the Greeks in general and Euclid in particular limited the reality of the Gods to 3 physical dimensions.

Hyperbolic geometry of the 19th century refuted this axiom b/c it did not limit its hypothesis to only 3 physical dimensions. Therefore an infinite number of lines can be drawn through that dot and remain parallel to the given line.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 11:27:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 8:33:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
At 7/29/2018 5:24:26 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
what do you mean by Euclid 5th axiom is disproved?

He is talking about non-euclidean geometry, straight lines on a curved surface do meet (think of the lines of longitude on a globe that meet at the poles). This makes the angles of a triangle on a curved surface add up to more or less than 180 degrees.

About your question of philosophy being wordplay: I think there is some truth to that, as (ironically) many philosophers have claimed in the past (e.g. Wittgenstein), especially when it regards foundations or axioms as you put it.

To be fair, Wittgenstein had a ... heterodox orientation towards Philosophy. He was as much a critic of the classical occupation as anyone; he wasn't as much a philosopher self-criticising as he was someone concerned with establishing a new meaning for Philosophy.

I recommend that the OP read Wittgenstein and Carnap if he dares.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 11:29:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 8:40:03 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
I admit that I'm not in touch with current philosophical literature so perhaps you could enlighten me on the current trend and direction of theoretical philosophy.

This isn't exactly (by any means) current... but you might enjoy this (one of my all-time favourite papers): http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu...
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
felixmendelssohn
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 1:47:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 11:29:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/2/2018 8:40:03 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
I admit that I'm not in touch with current philosophical literature so perhaps you could enlighten me on the current trend and direction of theoretical philosophy.

This isn't exactly (by any means) current... but you might enjoy this (one of my all-time favourite papers): http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu...

Nice. the paper had me narrow down the portion of philosophy i believe to be the result of word misuse. i started thinking about the language of philosophy when i was debating another on god. having studied abit of abstract alg before makes me think about a word in precise way. each object in abstract alg have precise definition. to check if the complex field is a group or not, one robotically check to see whether it satisfies those criterias. one thing that frustrated me in the debate was my opponent use of words are meaninglessly vague. like "human being the basis for morality". I questioned him on what it meant to be the basis for something just to get another vague definition.
Jensvs
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 7:53:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
About your question of philosophy being wordplay: I think there is some truth to that, as (ironically) many philosophers have claimed in the past (e.g. Wittgenstein), especially when it regards foundations or axioms as you put it.

To be fair, Wittgenstein had a ... heterodox orientation towards Philosophy. He was as much a critic of the classical occupation as anyone; he wasn't as much a philosopher self-criticising as he was someone concerned with establishing a new meaning for Philosophy.


I wouldn't say Wittgenstein was alone in this. Richard Rorty's pragmatism is of the same nature, likewise deconstruction and antifoundationalism and postmodern thought in general. It's something every philosopher has thought about at some time or another.

I admit that I'm not in touch with current philosophical literature so perhaps you could enlighten me on the current trend and direction of theoretical philosophy.


Well philosophy isn't by any means guided by a single paradigm, there are many directions. On the continental side you can discern phenomenology which has its roots in this Cartesian quest for certainty that starts from phenomenal consciousness but under the influence of Heidegger became more of an existential philosophy. Nowadays I guess you can see it as an introspective psychology, although phenomenologists would probably shoot me for this.
Then you have these very skeptical philosophies such as deconstructionism and its derivatives. They make everything political, denying objectivity by claiming underlying motives in all speech. This goes back to Nietzsche mainly I'd say.
Anglo-American philosophy is primarily linguistic philosophy, influenced by the late Wittgenstein (though not by his skepticism of philosophy), which sees language and logic as the main study objects. Here the idea is that through close analysis of language we can clarify concepts and words and scrutinize arguments, which it sees as the main task of philosophy. For example, in the philosophy of mind they try to clarify the different meanings of "consciousness" or "belief" or "sensation" with the aim of dissolving fake problems and providing psychology with a clearer vocabulary. Another poster mentioned Carnap and logical positivism which are at the roots of this too but no longer taken serious.
But most philosophers are doing work on historical figures and issues such as philosophy of science and technology, metaphysics, logic, sociology and psychology etc., not so much the big issues such as why there is something rather than nothing. But I guess you exclude these by asking about theoretical philosophy.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 8:47:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Logical Positivism, the idolatry of limiting the Gods to empirical/physical evidence. Basically the exact same error as made Euclid in his 5th axiom of geometry.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 8:50:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 1:47:36 AM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
At 8/2/2018 11:29:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/2/2018 8:40:03 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
I admit that I'm not in touch with current philosophical literature so perhaps you could enlighten me on the current trend and direction of theoretical philosophy.

Not impressed. How can a paper open with "modern logic" and ignore Hegel's dialectics?
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 8:55:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 8:40:03 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
At 8/2/2018 8:33:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
At 7/29/2018 5:24:26 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
what do you mean by Euclid 5th axiom is disproved?

He is talking about non-euclidean geometry, straight lines on a curved surface do meet (think of the lines of longitude on a globe that meet at the poles). This makes the angles of a triangle on a curved surface add up to more or less than 180 degrees.

I'm aware of non-euclidean geometry. What I wanted him to do was to clarify his use of the word "disproved". The existence of hyperbolic geometry hardly disproves the correctness of theorems belong to Euclidean geometry. It also doesn't disprove Euclid's postulates because those never require any proof.

Geometry its built upon proofs. Hyperbolic geometry disproved Euclid's 5th axiom NOT LAW but axiom - big difference. Hyperbolic geometry stands upon the premise that reality - its not limited to 3 physical dimensions. In theory infinite dimensions exist and therefore an infinite number of lines could be drawn through the dot and remain parallel to the line. This disproves the 5th axiom of Euclid's geometry.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 8:59:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 8:33:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
At 7/29/2018 5:24:26 PM, felixmendelssohn wrote:
what do you mean by Euclid 5th axiom is disproved?


At 7/29/2018 8:22:04 AM, mosc wrote:
Greek logic does not compare to Hebrew logic ... 2 completely different logic formats. An axiom does not compare to a law. Euclid's 5th axiom 19th century hyperbolic geometry disproved conclusively.

I am very skeptical about this comment though. Logic to my mind is universal and the existence of two different logics seems contradictory (in the sense of basic usage of reasoning, of course there are many logics such as syllogistic logic, propositional logic, modal logic, etc.). Care to expound on how Hebrew logic compares to Greek logic?

Logic stands upon Order. The Order of God its the opposite of DOG. Order changes ideas. Order in logic defines how a person structures his arguments. The Oral Torah logic system has a completely different logic order arrangement than developed by the ancient Greeks. Hegel's bi polar dialectics too has a completely different arrangement from the Greek syllogism.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 9:21:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Language is man made. Defining terms contrasts with rhetoric. Rhetoric, the use of a key term which the person who repeatedly repeats his propaganda term that remains totally undefined by the person that uses this undefined term.

The genesis of this philosophy has no Cannon of measurement. Jewish culture sharply differs with the culture developed by the ancient Greeks. Torah functions as the Constitution of the Republic. Plato's Republic had no such concept of a written Constitution. Based upon this distinction, British Constitutional law closely resembles Plato's Republic. Parliamentary Acts determine the Constitution of England. The Courts of England have no power to overturn and declare an act of Parliament as Unconstitutional.

The American written Constitution more closely resembles the ancient Hebrew Torah Constitution. Both Republic: 12 Tribes and 13 States respectively bear as close resemblance the one to the other. Unlike Americans today which primarily speak only English, the Founding Fathers had a working knowledge of Hebrew.

The Church perversion caused the simple minded European barbarians to view the T'NaCH from the skewed perspective of religion! Ignorant fools who confuse Jesus son of Zeus as God, how utterly pathetic.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 9:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein stands in the shadows of Bertrand Arthur William Russell in terms of fame. Russell says of Wittgenstein, "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating."

The later Wittgenstein, stridently anti-systematic in his approach and emphasized philosophy as a kind of "therapy." He repudiated much of his earlier theory published in Tractatus. The later Wittgenstein provided a detailed account of the many possible uses of ordinary language, calling language a series of interchangeable "language games" in which the meanings of words are derived not from any inherent logical structure, but from their public usage.

The logic to interpret the Torah and the Books of the Prophets and Holy Writings developed on completely different lines of study. Prophets command mussar. Jesus son of Zeus did not know the basics, proof that this imaginary man exists as a wolf in sheep clothing -- a counterfeit.

The noise of the new testament never once brings the subject of mussar on the table! The philosophy developed by Goyim never once considers the idea of mussar!!!! Mussar stands upon the foundation that all human beings - irregardless of the times or generation they live - struggle with good and evil. Adam the first man ate from the Tree of Good and Evil.

The church perversion frames this as a "sin". Torah frames the story of Adam as the beginning of the revelation of human nature! Words, a creation of Man, do not stand independent from human nature.

Oral Torah, the logic system wherein Jews throughout the generations interpret the intent of the Framer of the Constitution. The American Constitution - interpreted by the Supreme Court - has supporters who take a liberal interpretation of the written text and other supporter who take a conservative interpretation of the same Constitutional written text.

Mussar teaches the logic of the prophets wherein they interpreted the Written Torah the Constitution of the Republic of the 12 Tribes. The church perversion has so skewed how Goyim view their pathetic biblical interpretations - all priest should be burnt for their crimes against humanity.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 11:34:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
you arrive at your present confusion from not having a system of axioms from which to build on. If it's the axioms you question, then you're talking about a meta school of philosophy.

For example, Kant wants me to observe the categorical imperative is from the deontologic ethics school of philosophy and asks important questions about human duty and ought. Asking why deontics are valid in the first place is a meta-ethical question and is it's own school of thought. Reducing all of philosophy to 'word misuse,' is just ignorant.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 11:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 7:53:19 AM, Jensvs wrote:
I"m very saddened by the fact that you joined the site at such a low point; you seem like one of the most philosophically literate members still active.

For what it"s worth, I"m the resident Logical Positivist sympathiser (though I"m also a Spinozist and an Objectivist, so....... I"m not exactly known for holding non-ridiculed beliefs!)
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
Jensvs
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 10:26:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 11:26:30 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/3/2018 7:53:19 AM, Jensvs wrote:
I"m very saddened by the fact that you joined the site at such a low point; you seem like one of the most philosophically literate members still active.

For what it"s worth, I"m the resident Logical Positivist sympathiser (though I"m also a Spinozist and an Objectivist, so....... I"m not exactly known for holding non-ridiculed beliefs!)

Thanks. Too bad the forum isn't doing too well. I see loads of spammers too.
And I'm right there with you on the Spinozism btw.
mosc
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 8:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Baruch de Espinoza became the first secular Jew of modern Europe. He based his work Ethics upon Euclid's geometry. Pantheism dates back to the cultures of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Spinoza had no concept of Oral Torah logic build upon the 13 middot/attributes/bases by which later generations equally can apply this unique logic system to interpret the intent of the Framer of the Constitution of the Jewish Republic.

He assimilated to none Jewish cultures - the first face of strange worship which the Torah emphatically forbids. Why? If the tiny people of Israel assimilate and embrace alien foreign cultures and customs this undermines the ability of the Jewish people to remain distinct and separate from the cultures and customs practiced by far more numerous and powerful Goyim. He limited reality to 3 dimensions - - another face of strange worship.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.