PH: Philosophy is Grounded on Language! Is it??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs - and particularly some important words that we misleadingly call abstract nouns, such as knowledge, truth, mind, consciousness, being, identity, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on.

So the idea that philosophy offers a profound meta analysis of anything outside language - and particularly of the fictions we call concepts - is delusional. It's mistaking what we say for the way things are.

If you disagree, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Examples: what could make morality objective?; are there moral facts?; what is a fact?

There is something very wrong with the above.

What is Philosophy is an inherent function and drive that use various tools, e.g. logic, language, mathematics, sciences, espistemology, language, rational & critical thinking, morality want whatever humans inherently possess to facilitate the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

To save me time I checked with AI [wR] on why there is something very wrong with the above:

Your intuition is right, there are some shortcomings in this view of philosophy. Here are some counterpoints to consider:

Focus Beyond Language: While language is a crucial tool in philosophy, it's not the sole focus. Many philosophical problems deal with the world outside language. Consider questions like "Does the universe have a beginning?" or "Is there free will?". These delve into the nature of reality, not just how we talk about it.

Concepts and Reality: The dismissal of concepts as "fictions" is too simplistic. Concepts like truth, justice, or goodness may not be directly observable, but they represent aspects of reality we try to understand. Philosophy explores the relationship between these concepts and the world.

History of Philosophy: Throughout history, philosophers have addressed issues beyond language use. From Plato's theory of Forms (exploring the nature of reality) to Aristotle's inquiries into physics and ethics, philosophy has tackled fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, and morality.

Continental vs. Analytic Traditions: It's important to consider different philosophical traditions. While analytic philosophy often focuses on language analysis, continental philosophy explores broader questions about being, experience, and meaning.

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.
In conclusion, while language plays a vital role, philosophy isn't limited to analyzing it. It's a vast discipline that seeks to understand the world, ourselves, and our place in it.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't.

And when you can't, rinse and repeat that 'language is merely a tool that facilitate[s] higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense'. Why bother actually engaging your brain?

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

What is your definition of 'what is philosophy'.
I have defined philosophy in that thread.

As stated, language is merely a tool of communication used within Philosophy.
Language alone will not resolve philosophical issues.
What is most important within philosophy in achieving its inherent purpose is the realization and knowledge within specific human-based FSERC reinforced with philosophical critical thinking and rationality.

Language is merely a tool and like all tools they can be double-edged sword, so language can be used to facilitate terrible evils to humanity which would defeat the philosophical purposes of humanity.

In your case, I presume, your is leveraging on the Linguistic Turn is dealing with philosophical issue.
Note the failures of Russell and Wittgenstein in this aspect.

In the OP, AI [wR] stated;

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.
In conclusion, while language plays a vital role, philosophy isn't limited to analyzing it. It's a vast discipline that seeks to understand the world, ourselves, and our place in it.

[Impenitent]

love of wisdom...

is wisdom knowing when not to respond?

foolishness on my part...

-Imp

[commonsense]

love of wisdom...

is wisdom knowing when not to respond?

foolishness on my part...

-Imp

.

[phyllo]

There is something very wrong with the above.

One can say that anything is "grounded on language" if somebody talks about it. As soon as there is any communication, it becomes about language.

Physics is "grounded on language" because we define all sorts of objects and describe their behavior either with words or mathematical expressions. What do physicist do? They write a bunch of reports describing what they saw.

Surely you agree given your FSK ideas.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is something very wrong with the above.

One can say that anything is "grounded on language" if somebody talks about it. As soon as there is any communication, it becomes about language.

Physics is "grounded on language" because we define all sorts of objects and describe their behavior either with words or mathematical expressions. What do physicist do? They write a bunch of reports describing what they saw.

Surely you agree given your FSK ideas.

Isaiah Berlin said that philosophy is the field of study in which we discuss those questions to which we are not sure we would know how to recognise a true answer yet. But once we agree some means by which know how to recognise a correct answer, it belongs to somebody else. (Not a proper quote, I'm paraphrasing).

That's exactly what happened with physics (natural philosophy as was). The method of investigation switched from philosophers navel gazing and rationalising about celestial spheres and Substance, and a new paradigm was introduced to replace that. This new idea where all stuff is the same sort of stuff and experiments seem like a generally good way to find out how that all hangs together became physics because it's not philosophy any more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language-proper altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

Self-reflection, meditation, and the like to achieve the purpose of philosophy do not rely on language.

As I had stated, language is merely a tool [common and effective] to facilitate in achieving the purpose of philosophy, i.e. the well being, flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.

Language has its advantage but cannot deal with reality all-there-is.
Language limits, compartmentalizes and conditioned reality within its FSERC boundaries which is not credible.

[Iwannaplato]

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language-proper altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

This is confused in a number of ways. One, Koans are part of one tradition, Zen Buddhism. Two, Koans are not linguistically meaningless.

1. A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

As one of many examples where it is stunningly obvious the Koan is linguistically meaningful. But even the one hand clapping Koan is linguistically meaningful. That's not some random batch of words. Mull a bit over non-dualism and that there is ALSO language based meaning in it is rather obvious.

To avoid language altogether there are many practices that are non-linguistic in the various Eastern traditions. Bringing up Koans is strangely false given the options. Not just false, but a strange choice.

Self-reflection, meditation, and the like to achieve the purpose of philosophy do not rely on language.

'The purpose of philosophy.' There isn't one purpose in philosophy, which a defender of objective morals should be pretty darned aware of.

By the way 'What's a language independent philosophical idea/conclusion/fact?
Lol.

As I had stated, language is merely a tool [common and effective] to facilitate in achieving the purpose of philosophy, i.e. the well being, flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.

Language has its advantage but cannot deal with reality all-there-is.
Language limits, compartmentalizes and conditioned reality within its FSERC boundaries which is not credible.

So, there's reality that is independent of language?

As you would demand: demonstrate that here.

All knowledge, according to VA is conditioned on an FSK (or whatever the letters are these days). And every single FSK is language based.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

Here again:

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

QED. What are good and evil? And are they different from the concepts of good and evil? And what is a concept? And is to define any of these things to describe them? So are they things of some kind that exist somewhere, somehow - things that can be described? 'Grappling with the concepts of good and evil' sounds heroic and difficult. But it amounts to nothing more than showing how we do or could use the words good and evil. There's nothing beyond that use.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Again, 'delving into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain' sounds profound and difficult. But what are the mind and consciousness? Why do the different ways we use the words and their cognates not exhaust what we call the mind and consciousness? And why are they things that 'interact' with the brain? Why assume this distinction and relationship?

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.

What is the will, free or not? Try answering that and any other philosophical question, then look at what you've produced. It can only be an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a word.

The delusion that abstract nouns are names of important but mysterious things - things that can (if only with difficulty) be described - is ancient, potent and pervasive. It's legacy mysticism.

I mentioned the more refined philosophy of Eastern Philosophy attempts to understand the nature of reality without language-proper, e.g. koans, meditations, deep reflection, and the likes.

Also a picture is worth a thousand words where pictures come through meditations, deep reflections, imaginations, hallucinogens or natural illusions.

The above [problem of evil, mind-body problem, free will] is from AI [wR], so here is AI's answers:

let's delve deeper into how philosophy tackles these problems beyond just language analysis. Here's a breakdown for each example:

The Problem of Evil:
Language analysis might involve clarifying definitions of "good," "evil," and "omnipotence."
But philosophy goes further. It considers the nature of reality (does evil exist independently or is it relative?) and the logical coherence of having both free will and an all-powerful God.

The Mind-Body Problem:
Language analysis might focus on how we use words like "mind" and "body."
Philosophy delves into the nature of consciousness (is it a product of the brain, something separate?). It considers experiments and thought cases to understand the mind's relationship to the physical world.

Free Will vs. Determinism:
Language analysis might involve clarifying "free will" and "determinism."
Philosophy explores the implications of these concepts. It examines scientific theories about causality and the possibility of conscious choice existing within a determined universe.
Here's how philosophy goes beyond language in each case:

Thought Experiments: Philosophers create hypothetical scenarios to explore the boundaries of these problems. These scenarios push the limits of language and help us imagine the implications of different ideas.

Logical Reasoning: Philosophy uses logic to build arguments and identify inconsistencies. This helps us evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different positions on these issues.

Drawing on Different Fields: Philosophy incorporates insights from science, psychology, and other disciplines to inform its discussions. This broadens the scope beyond just analyzing the words themselves.

While language is the tool philosophers use, it's a springboard for deeper exploration. Ultimately, philosophy uses language to reason about the world, not just the way we talk about it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is something very wrong with the above.

One can say that anything is "grounded on language" if somebody talks about it. As soon as there is any communication, it becomes about language.

Physics is "grounded on language" because we define all sorts of objects and describe their behavior either with words or mathematical expressions. What do physicist do? They write a bunch of reports describing what they saw.

Surely you agree given your FSK ideas.

Language in the above case is not with reference to language-in-general where it is even extended to computers and animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_language

The term 'language' in this case refer to the Philosophy of Language and Linguistic, i.e. those that are dealt by the philosophical realists like Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Philosophy of Ordinary Language, and the likes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_ ... philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/
Ordinary Language philosophy, sometimes referred to as ‘Oxford’ philosophy, is a kind of ‘linguistic’ philosophy. Linguistic philosophy may be characterized as the view that a focus on language is key to both the content and method proper to the discipline of philosophy as a whole (and so is distinct from the Philosophy of Language).

Each type of linguistic will have its specific human-based linguistic FSK which in general is not as credible and objective as the scientific FSK.

or example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [within a linguistic FSK],
and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

[Walker]

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language-proper altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

Self-reflection, meditation, and the like to achieve the purpose of philosophy do not rely on language.

As I had stated, language is merely a tool [common and effective] to facilitate in achieving the purpose of philosophy, i.e. the well being, flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.

Language has its advantage but cannot deal with reality all-there-is.
Language limits, compartmentalizes and conditioned reality within its FSERC boundaries which is not credible.

Your ruminations prompted this, which I think is on the same track.

Thought is born of stillness. Philosophy is born of thought. Language both expresses thought and generates thought, and those thoughts can be philosophical or not. Non-philosophical thought occurs during action when attention is directed outward rather than inward as contemplation, which led vegetarian Thoreau to muse that he could easily devour a woodchuck, which means that in certain situations non-philosophical thoughts take choiceless precedence, and that initial physical response subsequently get tempered by ethical concepts. Non-philosophical thoughts are stimulated by the senses.

After a period of formal seated meditation where the sensory gates are closed and all attention points inward, the only stimuli is thought and mental images. When these are also slowed and then stilled awareness continues, however it’s not the same awareness as navigating the external world because the five sensory gates required for that navigation are closed. Neither is the awareness without thought or external stimuli, language dependent. Although communicating experiences may be language dependent, through silence saints are perpetually transmitting the essence of non-experience. The saint is an amplifier plugged into life and the perpetual transmissions can be detected by the body and identified by thought when the receiver is properly tuned.

What is non-experience? It occurs when no stimuli or thought connects to awareness, outside of time and space where there is no concept of self, no relationship with anything. In effect, this is non-existence.

After the formal seated meditation, (seating being required so that one doesn’t fall over), the resumption of thought and sensory stimuli is literally like being born again, into a new world, lots of freshness and newness.

[phyllo]

or example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [within a linguistic FSK],
and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I'm sure you know enough Buddhism to also know the nature of identity. There is no permanent Abraham Lincoln and there is no permanent sun.
Furthermore, "star", "president" and "USA" are concepts defined into existence. Notice the 'problems' of figuring how many planets there are in the solar system ... it all depends on how one defines the word "planet".

What I don't get in this thread is, what are you saying about philosophy?

When we move beyond the fact that humans create symbols and language in order to be able to communicate. And the words have to be defined. And there has to be a grammar.

What's beyond that in philosophy? And how is philosophy different from some other discipline or is it?

[Skepdick]

Isaiah Berlin said that philosophy is the field of study in which we discuss those questions to which we are not sure we would know how to recognise a true answer yet. But once we agree some means by which know how to recognise a correct answer, it belongs to somebody else. (Not a proper quote, I'm paraphrasing).

That's exactly what happened with physics (natural philosophy as was). The method of investigation switched from philosophers navel gazing and rationalising about celestial spheres and Substance, and a new paradigm was introduced to replace that. This new idea where all stuff is the same sort of stuff and experiments seem like a generally good way to find out how that all hangs together became physics because it's not philosophy any more.

I could explain the semantic property of decidability to you, but it'd go over your head - like everything else.

Take any question X for which you don't know how to recognise a correct answer. e.g Is abortion morally wrong?

Does the question "Is abortion morally wrong?" even have a true/correct answer?

Suppose you answer "No". OK thanks. Let me take X off your hands then.
Suppose you answer "Yes". OK thanks. Lets take X off your hands then.

In both cases philosophers are useless.

You have adopted the view of philosophers as some kind of experts/delegators in society. An authority on the means for deciding how answers to questions are to be obtained.

An authority on "correctness". Lol.

[Veritas Aequitas]

or example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [within a linguistic FSK],
and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I'm sure you know enough Buddhism to also know the nature of identity. There is no permanent Abraham Lincoln and there is no permanent sun.
Furthermore, "star", "president" and "USA" are concepts defined into existence. Notice the 'problems' of figuring how many planets there are in the solar system ... it all depends on how one defines the word "planet".

What I don't get in this thread is, what are you saying about philosophy?

When we move beyond the fact that humans create symbols and language in order to be able to communicate. And the words have to be defined. And there has to be a grammar.

What's beyond that in philosophy? And how is philosophy different from some other discipline or is it?

The purpose of philosophy is to optimize the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity within reality [all there is]; this is done within a human-based FSK and language is merely a tool among other tools in its realization of reality; the ultimate is the realization and to understand the true nature of reality.


1. The above realization of reality relies on language to conceptualize things, facilitate communication and survival but such things are not permanent [not its true nature].
2. The purpose of philosophy is to understand the ultimate true nature of things and reality.
3. Therefore language cannot be imperative for philosophy.

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
Sunyata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
The realization of 'nothingness' can only be realized without 'language', i.e. via meditation, via deep reflection within which is the ultimate approach within philosophy.
Therefore language is not imperative within philosophy [to achieve the ultimate purpose of philosophy] - which is my answer to the OP's question.