the limitations of language

[Walker]

'Trying to' deflect away from just how delusional you have been, here, is not going to work on every one else.

Talk about a Freudian revelation.

The only deflection is in your brain, Age, and that rather than some clarity dodge is the source of your questions. Ask anyone.

[Age]

'Trying to' deflect away from just how delusional you have been, here, is not going to work on every one else.

Talk about a Freudian revelation.

The only deflection is in your brain, Age, and that rather than some clarity dodge is the source of your questions. Ask anyone.

Okay.

[Walker]

'Trying to' deflect away from just how delusional you have been, here, is not going to work on every one else.

Talk about a Freudian revelation.

The only deflection is in your brain, Age, and that rather than some clarity dodge is the source of your questions. Ask anyone.

Okay.

Yes, here is your deflection point, which was the answer to your first questions.

When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life.

[Age]

Talk about a Freudian revelation.

The only deflection is in your brain, Age, and that rather than some clarity dodge is the source of your questions. Ask anyone.

Okay.

Yes, here is your deflection point, which was the answer to your first questions.

When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life.

Again, why only so-called "dead philosophers"?

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus.

In reading the Tractatus, we are not being presented with arguments which attempt to establish a conclusion, for to do so would rely on the subject matter being the kind of thing that can be talked about meaningfully.

That's basically my point as well. There can be a precise relationship between words and worlds when the words describe and encompass a world derived from the laws of nature. Words that are "naturally" true for everyone.

Though even in regard to conflicting goods and moral conflagrations there are any number of things that can be accepted as in fact true for everyone involved.

They then just reach a point where in reacting to particular words in the is/ought world they reach what can become radically different moral philosophies.

But the aims of the Tractatus, and of philosophy in general, are not the same as the aims of science. Instead, for Wittgenstein, philosophy aims at the clarification of our thoughts. Through pursuing philosophy as an activity, we come to realize the boundaries of sense.

On the other hand, science continues to clarify any number of material interactions. How else to explain extraordinary engineering feats and, well, this technology in and of itself. Where's the philosophical equivalent of that pertaining to ethics and political science?

As for the "boundaries of sense", tell that to the objectivists here. Their own senses have come to conclude that their own boundaries "necessarily" devolve into One True Path.

[Pistolero]

How is language made more objective?

How do we define concepts, so that they refer to what all can experience and validate, independently?
How do we "bring concepts down to earth?"
Concepts represented by words such as 'god', 'free-will', 'morality', 'love/hate'....'male/female', 'gender/sex'.....'race/ethnicity.'

How do we test our definitions?
Popularity or application?

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus.

The Tractatus ends on a mystical note, a term Wittgenstein did not shy from (unlike many analytical philosophers). Traditional philosophical problems such as the will, the soul, God and scepticism, cannot be resolved by appealing to the facts of our world. This is why they are mystical. In fact, it is not even correct to call these ‘problems’, for only issues that can be settled by appealing to the facts, such as the problems of physics or psychology, should be counted as problems to Wittgenstein.

Like this will stop the moral objectivists among us from insisting their own facts regarding conflicting goods have allowed them to embody the One True Path to Enlightenment. Or, for others, acquiring immortality and salvation. 

The logical positivists of the Vienna Circle were attracted to the Tractatus. They too held that metaphysical propositions are meaningless, and agreed with Wittgenstein that philosophers should demonstrate that such speculations are nonsense.

This, however, gets really, really problematic, really, really fast. After all, how on Earth did Wittenstein and those in the Vienna Circle actually demonstrate that metaphysical propositions are meaningless? And that philosophical speculation regarding them is nonsense. What, they are exempt from The Gap and Rummy's Rule? 

Who can provide us with all of the facts regarding questions of this sort:

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into an understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

Still, there is always the possibility that these questions can be answered objectively. But what are the odds that they will be before we are all dead and gone?

But according to Wittgenstein, any allegiance to the logical positivist’s verification principle – which says that only those sentences that can be verified count as meaningful – is itself meaningless. The logical positivists wanted to align philosophy with scientific method, but Wittgenstein would regard this as misguided.

And in particular from my own frame of mind "here and now" are human interactions that revolve around morality, politics and religion. Here even science has been stumped.

[Pistolero]

How is language made more objective?

How do we define concepts, so that they refer to what all can experience and validate, independently?
How do we "bring concepts down to earth?"
Concepts represented by words such as 'god', 'free-will', 'morality', 'love/hate'....'male/female', 'gender/sex'.....'race/ethnicity.'

How do we test our definitions?
Popularity or application?

Mary does not want to 'bring concepts down to earth'.
She wants them to remain obscure, abstract....so that she can easily negate them, or define them in whatever way helps in bringing about her collectivist, postmodern objectives...

A classic postmodern.
The cocnept of 'woman' became a contentious issue....

Mary's amorality depends on not defining morality by connecting it to independently verifiable actions.

Don't buy into her lies....she's not fractured & fragmented....but wants you all to be so...
Look into her posts, if you've got a few minuted to waste on her, and see her desperately trying to undermine all forms of probability....all expressions of certainty...
She's learned the postmodern strategy of linguistic subversion, creating a frame of mind they believe can be assimilated into their collectivism.

She does not really want to 'bring concepts down to earth'.....because that will prevent her from defining concepts in her subjective ways.....
She considers this an authoritarian imposition on her 'freedom'....to define concepts in whatever way she wants...like Dasein.
Like morality.
Like woman.
Like will.

And then she dismisses the will's freedom.
Want to know why she self-contradicts?
Because underlying her bullshyte is a spirituality, referring back to Abrahamism.
It believes that this is a cosmic inevitability....determined, not willed, by cosmic order.
This is what they mean when they claim to be "on the right side of history."

Fatalism....underlying their pretetiuos secularism is spiritual arrogance.
They were 'determined, i.e., chosen, to be agencies of this comic order....becoming increasingly uniform....
All conflicts will end, in this Utopian future. No more wars, no more disagreements...no more "conflicting ideals."

Paradise is "brought down to earth" but projected as an eternally imminent future.
They don't need god, because nobody can ever contradict cosmic determination.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy and Language
Do Languages Exist? And how does language work anyway? Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.

Languages seem an important feature of our lives. The languages we speak determine who we can communicate with, where we can work, and what we can read or listen to.

Here however, in my view, the distinction between language used in the either/or world and language used in the is/ought world is still basically the same. Yes, we might be at a loss to understand what those who speak an entirely different language are saying. But there are those able to translate it into their own language. And the translation either denotes objective truths or it doesn't. Same with those in specialized fields who have their own technical jargon. Those outside the field may be overwhelmed trying to figure out what is being conveyed. But again, there are others able to grasp it and then reconfigure it into an assessment more effable. 

Languages are also political. For instance, recent years have seen laws requiring migrants to the UK to learn English. An apparent decline in numbers of Welsh speakers led to calls for government money to be spent on Welsh language promotion. Kiev saw rioting in 2012 in response to moves to allow the Russian language, rather than Ukrainian, to be used in public institutions.

The politics of human interaction. In other words, the extent to which the "rules of behavior" --  rewards and punishments -- in any given community revolve around particular combinations of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law. Also, the reality of political economy and class.

Given the powerful role that languages play, it is perhaps surprising that some thinkers claim that such languages do not actually exist. These thinkers – who include significant linguists and philosophers such as Noam Chomsky (1928-) and Donald Davidson (1917-2003) – argue that terms such as ‘English’ or ‘Russian’ signify convenient fictions rather than real entities. These thinkers challenge our common sense notion of language, and force us to explore not only the nature of language, but the nature of reality itself.

Then this part...how deep do you want to go in order to untangle this given our day to day social, political and economic interactions, given in turn  the multitude of variables involved. Or, perhaps, more important still, how deep are you able to go given The Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The BBS in particular here. Why? Because so much embedded in human interactions is often beyond our either fully understanding or fully controlling.

As for Chomsky, there's the part where he is known for his "work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism". In other words, the part where some might enthusiastically agree with him in regard to linguistics and the acquisition of language, but fiercely oppose his radical left-wing politics. 

"A language is, according to Chomsky, a state obtained by a specific mental computational system that develops naturally and whose exact parameters are set by  the linguistic environment that the individual is exposed to as a child. "  IEP

Indoctrination out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. Precipitating, in other words, all manner of "failure to communicate".

[Walker]

Okay.

Yes, here is your deflection point, which was the answer to your first questions.

When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life.

Again, why only so-called "dead philosophers"?

"Only," is inferred by you, but not implied by me, at this time in the history of the world that this is written.

[Age]

Yes, here is your deflection point, which was the answer to your first questions.

When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life.

Again, why only so-called "dead philosophers"?

"Only," is inferred by you, but not implied by me, at this time in the history of the world that this is written.

So, 'now' 'we' are, again, back to,

So, no matter what you, or 'dead philosophers' say and claim it is 'the Truth', right?

Are 'we', 'now', going to also come back to,

If you had written … When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life … then you would have prompted a one word reaction.

As well? Or, are you actually going to answer, and clarify, 'my question', this time?

[Walker]

"No matter," is inferred by you, but not implied by me.

Could the inferred/implied dichotomy be the Achilles heel that slays the clarity you so desperately seek?

[Walker]

https://img.patriotpost.us/01JT94PP0Q2C ... dpr=2&q=50

[iambiguous]

Philosophy and Language
Do Languages Exist?And how does language work anyway? 
Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.

Three initial challenges seem to undermine the common sense view that languages such as English actually exist.

The first challenge: Much of our modern understanding of the world has come about through natural sciences such as physics and biology. These sciences aim to give an account of the natural world based on observation and experiment. Given the success of natural science, several thinkers, including Chomsky, suggest that linguistics – the study of language – should proceed according to its methods. Thus, linguistics should examine the natural world and the place of linguistic phenomena within it.

Language and philosophy? Linguistics? Linguistics is said to be "the scientific study of language".

Now all we need are actual social, political and economic contexts. In other words, in order to explore "for all practical purposes" the part where we connect the dots between words and worlds given our day to day interactions. What can we encompass linguistically such that there are very, very few failures to communicate, as opposed to those contexts in which failures to communicate are often more or less the rule...and going all the way back to, well, the very beginning of the human species itself.

This is where a problem arises for the common sense view. For although studying observable aspects of linguistic phenomena may tell us, for example, about the vocal chords or the brains of language users, it is hard to imagine how we could observe any entity called ‘the English language’.

So, what important point am I missing here? The common sense view I construe regarding the English language revolves around the historical reality that, for all practical purposes, encompasses its invention and its use and its evolution over the centuries. The vocal chords? The brain? Clearly they are crucial biological components embedded in the use of any language. But the words still have to convey something about the world that is intelligible to others who speak the same language. Then for those of my ilk that crucial distinction between the use of language in the either/or world and its use in the is/ought world.

It is true that we can observe sounds that we call ‘English expressions’, but the English language cannot just be a collection of all the sounds English speakers have made (some English sentences have never been uttered, while some sounds, such as hiccups, are not language). The challenge argues that if languages like English cannot be observed in a natural scientific manner, they are not real; rather, the idea of ‘the English language’ is a pre-scientific notion, like ‘the devil’. We may talk about it in daily discourse, but the term does not represent anything actually existing in reality as revealed by natural science.

Now, this may well encompass a point that I am simply unable to wrap my head around "here and now". But for those of us who use the English language existentially, it will always come down to the words we choose [given free will] and the extent to which others either agree or disagree with the assessment we chose to describe things with.

In other words, the extent to which we can close the gap between what we believe about something "in our heads" and what we are able to demonstrate [empirically, experientially, experimentally] such that all other reasonable men and women concur.

[iambiguous]

Do Languages Exist?And how does language work anyway? 
Antony Tomlinson weighs the arguments.

The Idiolectal View

Given these challenges to the common sense view, some folks believe that the phenomenon of human language is best understood not as a series of languages like English or Welsh, but as a series of idiolects.An idiolect is the language of one individual. A description of one person’s idiolect includes all the vocabulary and grammatical features of that individual’s personal way of speaking (or writing). Their idiolect is an independent, self-contained system. So Bob’s use of “I don’t know nothing” is simply a feature of Bob’s idiolect. It is not ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ according to any external standard.

Now we're talking. Once you do get down to the language of any particular individual, the more my own assessment of dasein kicks in. Meaning, in other words, a distinction is made between language that is applicable to all of us essentially, objectively, universally [like the laws of nature and mathematics] and language that conveys only our own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political and spiritual prejudices.

Bob "doesn't know nothing" about what? What particular set of circumstances? And, as those circumstances are described, there are things he will say that we can all agree on objectively and things that might precipitate all manner of objections instead. In other words, conflicting goods and political economy.

This view holds that individuals’ idiolects, as opposed to mass languages like English, are the only form of language that exists.

Yes, but only if the distinction I make above is recognized in regard to the limitations of language. Given, in other words, ever evolving historical and cultural contexts and individual lives that can be widely -- wildly --  distinct. 

It is an approach that fits well with a linguistics based on natural science. For while it seems impossible to observe and experiment on ‘the English language’, we can describe the idiolect of one individual, and study the way in which it manifests itself, for instance in that individual’s behaviour or brain. In this way, linguistics now becomes continuous with natural sciences like biology.

Again, however, in regard to these descriptions, what happens when we do encounter conflicting goods? For example, noting the manner in which the world around us is described politically on Fox News and on MSNBC. Thus the "linguistics" here will often be anything but "continuous with natural sciences like biology".