Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 5:25 am ...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.

What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

Language as a Model: Language doesn't perfectly mirror reality, but rather offers a simplified model. We use words and concepts to categorize and understand the world, but these categories may not capture the full complexity of experience. For instance, the color spectrum is continuous, but we use discrete terms like "red" and "blue."

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Words can have multiple meanings depending on context, leading to misunderstandings. Vague terms like "tall" or "big" further complicate matters. This ambiguity makes it hard to precisely represent some aspects of reality.

The Limits of Words: Language is discrete. We use definite categories and definitions, but reality can be more fluid and continuous. For example, the color spectrum is a gradient, but we use separate words for distinct colors (red, orange, yellow). This creates gaps and limitations in how precisely we can describe the world.

Unspoken Assumptions and Culture: Language reflects the cultural background of its speakers. Certain concepts or experiences might not have direct translations because they are specific to a particular culture. This makes it difficult to represent reality universally through language.

Limitations of Expression: Some experiences, like emotions, can be difficult to fully express through language. The feeling of awe at a breathtaking vista or the intimacy of love might be too nuanced for words to perfectly capture.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:

Wittgenstein's Language Games: Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language functions like a set of tools, each with specific uses. Trying to use language to represent reality outside its intended use can lead to philosophical problems.

These limitations don't negate the power of language. It allows us to share ideas, build knowledge, and connect with others. By understanding these limitations, we can become more precise and nuanced communicators.

Where Western philosophy ends, with the limits of language, marks the beginning of Eastern philosophy. The Tao de jing of Laozi begins with the limitations of language and then proceeds from that as a starting point.
On the other hand, the limitation of language marks the end of Wittgenstein’s cogitations. In contrast to Wittgenstein, who thought that one should remain silent about that which cannot be put into words, the message of the Zhuangzi is that one can speak about that which cannot put into words but the speech will be strange and indirect. Through the focus on the monstrous character, No-Lips in the Zhuangzi, this paper argues that a key message of the Zhuangzi is that the art of transcending language in the Zhuangzi is through the use of crippled speech. The metaphor of crippled speech, speech which is actually unheard, illustrates that philosophical truths cannot be put into words but can be indirectly signified through the art of stretching language beyond its normal contours. This allows Eastern philosophy, through the philosophy of the Zhuangzi to transcend the limits of language.
https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLWLT

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:22 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 5:25 am ...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.

What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

To save me time, here is AI [wR] on the limit of language is representing reality;

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

Language as a Model: Language doesn't perfectly mirror reality, but rather offers a simplified model. We use words and concepts to categorize and understand the world, but these categories may not capture the full complexity of experience. For instance, the color spectrum is continuous, but we use discrete terms like "red" and "blue."

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Words can have multiple meanings depending on context, leading to misunderstandings. Vague terms like "tall" or "big" further complicate matters. This ambiguity makes it hard to precisely represent some aspects of reality.

The Limits of Words: Language is discrete. We use definite categories and definitions, but reality can be more fluid and continuous. For example, the color spectrum is a gradient, but we use separate words for distinct colors (red, orange, yellow). This creates gaps and limitations in how precisely we can describe the world.

Unspoken Assumptions and Culture: Language reflects the cultural background of its speakers. Certain concepts or experiences might not have direct translations because they are specific to a particular culture. This makes it difficult to represent reality universally through language.

Limitations of Expression: Some experiences, like emotions, can be difficult to fully express through language. The feeling of awe at a breathtaking vista or the intimacy of love might be too nuanced for words to perfectly capture.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:

Wittgenstein's Language Games: Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language functions like a set of tools, each with specific uses. Trying to use language to represent reality outside its intended use can lead to philosophical problems.

These limitations don't negate the power of language. It allows us to share ideas, build knowledge, and connect with others. By understanding these limitations, we can become more precise and nuanced communicators.

Where Western philosophy ends, with the limits of language, marks the beginning of Eastern philosophy. The Tao de jing of Laozi begins with the limitations of language and then proceeds from that as a starting point.
On the other hand, the limitation of language marks the end of Wittgenstein’s cogitations. In contrast to Wittgenstein, who thought that one should remain silent about that which cannot be put into words, the message of the Zhuangzi is that one can speak about that which cannot put into words but the speech will be strange and indirect. Through the focus on the monstrous character, No-Lips in the Zhuangzi, this paper argues that a key message of the Zhuangzi is that the art of transcending language in the Zhuangzi is through the use of crippled speech. The metaphor of crippled speech, speech which is actually unheard, illustrates that philosophical truths cannot be put into words but can be indirectly signified through the art of stretching language beyond its normal contours. This allows Eastern philosophy, through the philosophy of the Zhuangzi to transcend the limits of language.
https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLWLT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 8:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:22 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:25 am
What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

To save me time, here is AI [wR] on the limit of language is representing reality;

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

As with any programming, AI comes under the RIRO caveat. For example...

A 'representationalist' or 'correspondence' or 'truth-maker/ bearer' theory of language is the delusion that we have to recognise and overcome.
And Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' and 'language game' ideas provide a way to free us from the delusion - including the delusion that language is limited.

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has [absolute] mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved [but never perfected to the ideal].

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:47 am All meanings are subjective property, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is never the property of the object, meaning is bestowed upon the object, which is otherwise meaningless. Meanings are the experiences of biology, which biology then projects upon a meaningless SUBJECTIVE WORLD. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject. You do not know what is out there, what you do know is that what is out there affects you, altering your biological state. Apparent reality is the creation of biology out of the experiences of the surrounding energies to which it is attuned to. Ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, a place of no things.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 4:22 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:47 am All meanings are subjective property, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is never the property of the object, meaning is bestowed upon the object, which is otherwise meaningless. Meanings are the experiences of biology, which biology then projects upon a meaningless SUBJECTIVE WORLD. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject. You do not know what is out there, what you do know is that what is out there affects you, altering your biological state. Apparent reality is the creation of biology out of the experiences of the surrounding energies to which it is attuned to. Ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, a place of no things.

As an idealist I find that what you call "ultimate reality" and what I call "possibility" is rather hard to picture.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:02 pm Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 11:31 am Maybe you should look at the etymology and meaning of "define". From the latin "finis" or "finire . End. Finish. To bring to an end.

To define the infinite is to put an end to the infinite. But the infinite is endless.

The sophist had you chasing our own tail because he's operating from a contradiction. He figures his salvation's guaranteed which gives him carte blanche to be intellectually dishonest - don't let him waste your time.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:32 am This further enhances my belief that you're operating from the Lockean base of resemblance theory of representation ( which, in itself, is probably a remnant of direct realism. ) Very outdated. But still, quite commonplace.

Representations do not have to RESEMBLE or LOOK LIKE reality in order to be accurate.
For example, you do not need an infinite representation in order to accurately represent something that is infinite.
In other words, by using a finite representation to represent something that is infinite, you are not necessarily "falsifying reality".

Representations are language-laden ( something you stubbornly deny, partly due to your own narrow understanding of the concept of language, but also, no doubt due to your own severe arrogance and stubbornness. )

The language you're using determines what your representation is saying. It determines what you're talking about ( the referenced portion of reality, the subject ) and it also determines what the referenced portion of reality must be in order for the representation to be accurate ( the subject. )

The word "cat" looks nothing like cats, yet it is can be used to accurately represent any cat.

And your definition of the word "define" is obsolete and irrelevant. The relevant meaning of the word "define" is "to describe the meaning of a word -- the concept attached to it."

As for the word "infinite", it simply means "a number larger than every integer"

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:02 pm Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

Aren't you presuming what you're supposed to prove, namely, that the universe must have a beginning?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:02 am I reject representationalism in all of its forms.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 6:33 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 7:02 am I reject representationalism in all of its forms.

Exactly. And that's your problem.