Philosophy Now Forum

Tom Shipka considers whether the negativity of communicative unclarity impedes the ontological contingency of non-distance in the dialectic of being, or something.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/62/Erudition_or_Gobbledygook

Mea culpa.

So true. And why would philosohy even need 'technical' language, especially not technical terms that have been pilfered from science, where technical terms are a necessary part of scientific communication?
Linguistic nonsense goes a long way to explaining why many philosophy students go insane.

That "gobblygook" was really clear to me...but:


Philosophy creates language ,as all sciences as subsidiaries of philosophy are languages.

You study math and science to understand a language, not principles, because principles are just the summation of terms under a new term.

Philosophy has become language entropy...much of this reverting back to its western grounding in the dialectic. An assumed term, where the interplay between words creates new words with new meanings and new meaning to old words.

Language effectively becomes less meaningful as it becomes more complex and given the current degree of "progress" in academic studies everyone become an expert in something they cannot relay to someone else.

It is dead work as most of science is dead rhetoric. Add in AI eventually creating its own language, which will branch off from qualitative everyday language...and philosophy is dead center of a language war.

Metaphorically this reflects with the "tower of babel" where man formed a spiral to the heavens and ironically created language ambiguity by trying to peirce the heavens...with the heavens representing man intellectual qualities.

We see this spiral in the munchausseen trillema...but also in the scientific method itself in both form and function.

Philosophy has become a process of distinction which fails to reflect on this origin and see if it is even valid under it's own premises.

mathematics is a language unto itself

-Imp

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:00 pm Tom Shipka considers whether the negativity of communicative unclarity impedes the ontological contingency of non-distance in the dialectic of being, or something.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/62/Eru ... bbledygook

Every philosopher, theorist and critic should be obligated to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," (short essay). It says it all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:27 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:00 pm Tom Shipka considers whether the negativity of communicative unclarity impedes the ontological contingency of non-distance in the dialectic of being, or something.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/62/Eru ... bbledygook

Every philosopher, theorist and critic should be obligated to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," (short essay). It says it all.

Link?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:27 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:00 pm Tom Shipka considers whether the negativity of communicative unclarity impedes the ontological contingency of non-distance in the dialectic of being, or something.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/62/Eru ... bbledygook

Every philosopher, theorist and critic should be obligated to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," (short essay). It says it all.

Link?

Happy to oblige. http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf