Page 1 of 2
Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:08 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Below are two very popular philosophical views within the current philosophical community, especially in Academia are related to the below:
Ordinary Language Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41934
Here are the Central Ideas of Ordinary Language Philosophy; note its bloated arrogance in viewing other philosophies as inferior, thus must be rejected.
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868
People like PH, FDP and others[?] are very inclined towards ordinary language philosophy and mainstream Analytic Philosophy.
Here is a criticism of the above philosophies via Semantic Skepticism:
The Reflexive Ceiling of Philosophical Semantics – Why I Prefer Semantic Skepticism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-FxVlaqPiI
This is a video for those interested in philosophy of language, epistemology, and semantics! I explore a fundamental issue: the limits of formalizing meaning and the philosophical temptation to treat semantics as a precise, closed system.
In this discussion, I introduce the idea of the "reflexive ceiling" in semantics—the point at which attempts to theorize meaning collapse under their own weight. What happens when the pursuit of greater precision leads to an ever-expanding, self-referential structure? Instead of clarifying meaning, are we actually distancing it further from ordinary linguistic experience?
Drawing from Frege, Russell, Quine, Davidson, and Putnam, I critically examine how formal semantics has grown increasingly complex, layering intensionality, indexicality, and modal conditions—not as a true solution to meaning, but as a symptom of its unresolved challenges.
Throughout the video, I advocate for
semantic skepticism as a disciplined and critical approach—not as a rejection of meaning, but as a warning against the dangers of excessive formalism and unchecked metaphysical semantics.
This discussion is inspired by my 2022 article published in Geltung (Journal of PUC University in São Paulo), where I argue that semantics faces an inherent limitation in its attempt to stabilize meaning across different contexts.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:09 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Notes:
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:19 am
by attofishpi
Y do you do that? ---> Notes:
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:44 am
by Veritas Aequitas
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:19 am
Y do you do that? ---> Notes:
Normally I have a lot of relevant matters to add to an older OP whenever I come across them later.
Point is whenever I want to add relevant matters, the thread had gone haywire with pages of nonsense. It is like searching for a need in a haystack or a mountain of rubbish.
So, reserving 'Notes' is pragmatic because I use all my posts for future references as you will note in the above and elsewhere.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:03 am
by puto
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:42 am
by Flannel Jesus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:19 am
Y do you do that? ---> Notes:
Why do you write like that? Y, wot, that shit?
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:49 am
by attofishpi
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:42 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:19 am
Y do you do that? ---> Notes:
Why do you write like that? Y, wot, that shit?
Have been hanging out wiv Belinda, even accelafine doesn't bust my balls over shortening thangs as Y R U wot U R etc..?
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:55 am
by Flannel Jesus
Wiv?
Come on, don't you think you're taking it a bit far? Can't you write like a human being?
You just don't encourage people to take you seriously with that crap.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:56 am
by attofishpi
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:55 am
Wiv?
Come on, don't you think you're taking it a bit far? Can't you write like a human being?
..this is how the sage version of humans write, right?
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:57 am
by attofishpi
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:55 am
You just don't encourage people to take you seriously with that crap.
Fair point.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:06 pm
by Flannel Jesus
I have a friend who types like that in our group chats. I'm out wiv da fam. Fanks.
A few of my friends kinda speak with a similar accent. She's the only one who writes like that. She's also the only one who's an unemployed drug addict.
I think the connection between how you present yourself and how people perceived you is interesting. I started listening to this communication coach called Vihn Giang recently, he gives a lot of great advice about that sort of thing. He says he was surprised to learn that saying th with an f sound, like fanks, made people perceive him as less intelligent and capable than he was.
So for years, this intelligent and very capable guy was unknowingly giving people the impression he was an imbecile, and he decided he didn't want that.
We all carry around these biases about the way people speak and write. Even if we consciously know, "just because he speaks like a thug who didn't graduate high school doesn't mean he's not thoughtful and intelligent", it still subconsciously affects our view of the person we're talking to. People can't really help it.
But some people want to present themselves as obnoxious and mentally inert, so for them, I guess that's fine
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:16 pm
by attofishpi
Yes, fair point. I just returned from a restaurant for a friend's birfday. I often write birthday like that to people on facebook, mostly ex-work colleagues (ozzies) that would sometimes call me "geezer", even though I am from Hampshire..i think they like to hear from me with a little of that accent they miss, aside from my charismatic charm, poor things.
I tend to use U R, can U etc especially when texting on mobile phone just because it's easier to type.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:17 pm
by Flannel Jesus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:16 pm
especially when texting on mobile phone just because it's easier to type.
That's why I love swype typing on a phone. Have you ever tried it? It's brilliant, especially for people who are already very good typists.
I can type this whole sentence faster than you could type "u wot M8" if you type one letter at a time.
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:24 pm
by attofishpi
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:17 pm
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:16 pm
especially when texting on mobile phone just because it's easier to type.
That's why I love swype typing on a phone. Have you ever tried it? It's brilliant, especially for people who are already very good typists.
I can type this whole sentence faster than you could type "u wot M8" if you type one letter at a time.
That sound's interesting, predictive text pisses me off sometimes and tech replacing what I type with correct English spelling, when I want to use my type of speak in certain situations.
I will check "swype"
Re: Semantic Skepticism
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:29 pm
by Impenitent
notes my ass... never even a G clef to be seen...
-Imp
