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

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Philosophy is all about putting shit into words. And he keeps using words to tell us the nature of reality. And he links us to words that supposedly tell us the nature of reality. And he says that all knowledge is conditioned on an FSK and all FSKs are language based.

Yes, there may be other ways to ascertain the truth, for example meditation. But that's not philosophy, and he doesn't seem to notice that he is contradicting years of him saying that all knowledge is conditioned on an FSK and every single FSK he has mentioned, linked to, described, defined, etc., is language-based.

Now, perhaps because it is convenient for a specific argument, he contradicts all those years of presenting as utterly certain his whole FSK model, and says that language is not necessary, which means that FSKs, being amongst other things language-based, are not necessary. Even though he's chided, for example, Peter Holmes for years for thinking one didn't need an FSK to have knowledge.

Will there be any real interest when presented with the contradiction? No. Because the instrumental value IN THE MOMENT of his arguments are all that matters. So, the contradiction cannot be interesting to him. He cannot possibly acknowledge it in the moment, because the only value is in the moment defense and attack. It was convenient to bring up this new line related to non-verbal knowledge and approaches, so he must act as if this in no way contradicts anything he said. It must all work together, so it does. The must having to do with winning in the moment or at least not losing.

Utterly eliminating the chance of collaboration.

I have approached this in the past in a more 'hey, but that leads to problems when we think about what you said over here' manner. But, no there is never a problem, nothing ever to be learned.

So, I'll post as if the sad habit will continue.

Now suddenly the truth is nothingness and the real approach is Eastern, or VA's sense of Eastern approaches.

Let's for a moment mull over what most of the expert meditators whose names end up in Eastern texts would think about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or VA's project and its mass of words, words, words........

"Vaccha, the speculative view that the world is eternal... that the soul and the body are the same... that after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: these views lead to quarreling, disputes, brawling, & the taking up of rods & swords, arguments, & the suffering of death. However, the views leading to dispassion, to disenchantment, to cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding, are the four noble truths: suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of suffering."

VA will perhaps have trouble generalizing from this attitude of the Buddha's and manage not to notice how, for example, the massive texts of Kant, or his own endless repetition of positions is something one is warned away from and encouraged to stop in most forms of Buddhism.

[Atla]

In the West, the philosopher has become a totally different phenomenon. Due to Greek influence, the philosopher lost his roots in existence and became more and more rational, became more and more speculative. And the Western philosophy has grown out of the Greek experiment, hence Western philosophy has gone almost in the opposite direction from Sufism. It has become a logic-chopping, great arguments about nothing, just hair-splitting.

And slowly, slowly the Western philosophy has come to a dead end. Now it is nothing but linguistic analysis. It no longer thinks of great things, it is no more concerned with God or truth or freedom or love, no, not at all. Its whole concern has become the meaning of words. When the Western
philosopher thinks about God he means that he will think what the word God means. He is not concerned with the reality of God, he is concerned only with the word ”God” – as if by analyzing the word ”fire” you will come to know fire, or by analyzing the word ”bread” your hunger will be
satisfied. The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the word, ”bread”, ” God”, ”love”, and has completely forgotten that ”love” is only a word, it is not reality. It is only a symbol; it is a finger pointing to the moon.

The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the finger – how long it is, how beautiful or not beautiful it is, black or white, and has completely forgotten that it simply points to the moon. You need not be concerned with the finger; you can forget about it. Look at the moon and forget the
finger – but the Western philosophy has become greatly skilled in thinking about the finger.

If you read the works of the greatest philosophers in the West – Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore – you will be surprised: just linguistic analysis. The reality is no longer any concern of philosophy.

Of course philosophy isn't grounded on language, the philosophy of language and linguistic analysis isn't all of philosophy, just a part of it. Some analytical philosophy types may have gone mad thinking that it is. But when VA says that Sunyata is the ultimate nature of reality, we can be fairly sure that he doesn't quite know what he's talking about either.

[Iwannaplato]

In the West, the philosopher has become a totally different phenomenon. Due to Greek influence, the philosopher lost his roots in existence and became more and more rational, became more and more speculative. And the Western philosophy has grown out of the Greek experiment, hence Western philosophy has gone almost in the opposite direction from Sufism. It has become a logic-chopping, great arguments about nothing, just hair-splitting.

And slowly, slowly the Western philosophy has come to a dead end. Now it is nothing but linguistic analysis. It no longer thinks of great things, it is no more concerned with God or truth or freedom or love, no, not at all. Its whole concern has become the meaning of words. When the Western
philosopher thinks about God he means that he will think what the word God means. He is not concerned with the reality of God, he is concerned only with the word ”God” – as if by analyzing the word ”fire” you will come to know fire, or by analyzing the word ”bread” your hunger will be
satisfied. The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the word, ”bread”, ” God”, ”love”, and has completely forgotten that ”love” is only a word, it is not reality. It is only a symbol; it is a finger pointing to the moon.

The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the finger – how long it is, how beautiful or not beautiful it is, black or white, and has completely forgotten that it simply points to the moon. You need not be concerned with the finger; you can forget about it. Look at the moon and forget the
finger – but the Western philosophy has become greatly skilled in thinking about the finger.

If you read the works of the greatest philosophers in the West – Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore – you will be surprised: just linguistic analysis. The reality is no longer any concern of philosophy.

Of course philosophy isn't grounded on language, the philosophy of language and linguistic analysis isn't all of philosophy, just a part of it. Some analytical philosophy types may have gone mad thinking that it is. But when VA says that Sunyata is the ultimate nature of reality, we can be fairly sure that he doesn't quite know what he's talking about either.

Where is this post by Osho? or by someone quoting old Rajneesh?

Who says those are the greatest philosophers in the West? OK, Osho does. But I wonder based on what?

And slowly, slowly the Western philosophy has come to a dead end. Now it is nothing but linguistic analysis.

He seems unaware of other parts of the Western tradition. Perhaps he should have spent less time buying cars.

He seems not to have read much Eastern Philosophy or why bother with the adjective 'Western'?

[Atla]

In the West, the philosopher has become a totally different phenomenon. Due to Greek influence, the philosopher lost his roots in existence and became more and more rational, became more and more speculative. And the Western philosophy has grown out of the Greek experiment, hence Western philosophy has gone almost in the opposite direction from Sufism. It has become a logic-chopping, great arguments about nothing, just hair-splitting.

And slowly, slowly the Western philosophy has come to a dead end. Now it is nothing but linguistic analysis. It no longer thinks of great things, it is no more concerned with God or truth or freedom or love, no, not at all. Its whole concern has become the meaning of words. When the Western
philosopher thinks about God he means that he will think what the word God means. He is not concerned with the reality of God, he is concerned only with the word ”God” – as if by analyzing the word ”fire” you will come to know fire, or by analyzing the word ”bread” your hunger will be
satisfied. The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the word, ”bread”, ” God”, ”love”, and has completely forgotten that ”love” is only a word, it is not reality. It is only a symbol; it is a finger pointing to the moon.

The Western philosophy goes on thinking about the finger – how long it is, how beautiful or not beautiful it is, black or white, and has completely forgotten that it simply points to the moon. You need not be concerned with the finger; you can forget about it. Look at the moon and forget the
finger – but the Western philosophy has become greatly skilled in thinking about the finger.

If you read the works of the greatest philosophers in the West – Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore – you will be surprised: just linguistic analysis. The reality is no longer any concern of philosophy.

Of course philosophy isn't grounded on language, the philosophy of language and linguistic analysis isn't all of philosophy, just a part of it. Some analytical philosophy types may have gone mad thinking that it is. But when VA says that Sunyata is the ultimate nature of reality, we can be fairly sure that he doesn't quite know what he's talking about either.

Where is this post by Osho? or by someone quoting old Rajneesh?

Who says those are the greatest philosophers in the West? OK, Osho does. But I wonder based on what?

And slowly, slowly the Western philosophy has come to a dead end. Now it is nothing but linguistic analysis.

He seems unaware of other parts of the Western tradition. Perhaps he should have spent less time buying cars.

He seems not to have read much Eastern Philosophy or why bother with the adjective 'Western'?

Looks like he mostly read analytic philosophy, obviously.

[Walker]

Before he was Osho, he was a philosophy professor.

[Iwannaplato]

As gurus go, Osho had a positive side: he was pretty pro-sex/sensuality and he also allowed for the expression of emotions in ways that would be taboo in most temples, churches, ashrams, etc. He mixed Eastern and Western trends and ideas and practices, and came up with a very eclectic set of practices. One's that reflected a more accepting attitude towards what is inside us [also]. In other words, less judgment of desire and emotions. Less judgment of human nature.

Ken Wilber could be seen as a successor, albeit more through Buddhism as a center. I see he's kind of crashed on both respect and health fronts, hm. I didn't know that until just now. I was curious to see if he openly acknowledged Osho or if they merely overlapped on ideas.