Correct the language problems (semantics) through definitions and the philosophy problems (conundrums and mysteries) go away.
The philosophy problems go away but not the philosophy itself. Philosophy is something like a subspecies of language. 
I think of it more as:
Philosophy is reasoning, ontology, metaphysics, and methodology. Language is merely notation of concepts (through sound or script) within the philosophy for the communication of it.
What I meant (and what Wittgenstein means) is that what are really linguistic problems and confusions appear as, and take the form of, philosophy.
Very often in philosophy you are seeing a relationship between two or more concepts, not a relationship between a concept and the world; an abstract circularity that begins spinning without having any contact with reality. So, when you think you see a truth or a fact in there, you might only be seeing a truth or a fact confirmed by another concept in this self organizing circle of concepts… none of which ever ‘touch the ground’.
Here is a good essay to check out:
For the most part, I agree.
But I still think it’s a lot more difficult to cover all negatives than you suggest. Using “only” is a good way to cover a whole range of negative truths, but in the example you offered, it would only be sufficient to eliminate all the places other than West where the sun might set. But what happens between those moments. For example, when the sun is at its highest in the sky, does it turn into a pumpkin? On its way from East to West, does it do a few loops in the sky? If you don’t mention these, you might be misrepresenting the truth.
I suggested a solution to this which I didn’t catch whether you agree with it or not–rather than look for an all encompassing blanket term/phrase that covers all possible negative cases, why not predict based on the specific circumstances you’re under how your statement might be misinterpreted. In ordinary situations, I don’t think we’d have to mention what happens to the sun while its in the sky because most sane people wouldn’t misinterpret statements about where the sun rises and where it sets to the effect that it does some crazy and bizarre things while it’s up in the sky. But there are other situations in which you might want to mention a few negatives because it’s likely that those negatives will be assumed by your listeners. The atheism debate is a good one here. If I say that I’m an atheist, and what I really mean is that I’m agnostic, I’d probably do well to say “I’m an atheist, but not the type that believes there is no God. I just mean I’m not certain about the existence of God.”
The point is, try to predict how your words might be misinterpreted by others. It’s not a perfect approach, of course, as there can always be ways to misinterpret your words that you would never have predicted, but I think it’s more practical than looking for that one blanket term (like “only”) that covers absolutely every possible negative imaginable.
If you want to know why there are so very many problems relating to semantics and refusal to adhere to definitions, the following is a good example revelation concerning how “tweaking definitions” can (and does) make billions of dollars for the tweakers in politics and yield ultimate control over a population (Semitic mysticism).
The following is a video of a Texas attorney who has had enough. He is somewhat like an Alex Jones type of “fight the corrupted system” guy. He set up an internet legal network to help educate the people on the technicalities of the laws that are being used against them.
Most of this presentation involves the unspoken redefining of words that are used in Texas law, although it applies to just about every US State and Federal governing. The trick is to get people to believe that formerly agreed upon definitions actually mean something other (usually more encompassing) than they did. The people end up not rebelling because they think that they broke the law even when they actually didn’t. They believe the laws are different than they really are and were intended to be.
If you really want to make a dent in reforming government in the US (and probably throughout the West) all you really have to do is look up and revisit the written definitions of the words being used against the people by intentionally manipulative governments (who granted themselves the right to not tell the people the truth).
From the governments point of view, if they can get away with it and make a profit, DO IT! By the time the people figure out how they were fooled, you will already be “too wealthy and powerful to care”.
It is long and detailed, so if you have the patience and are interested in US law trickery and corruption, it is worth watching even if you are not in Texas.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec[/youtube]
It’s all about [size=150]Obfuscation and Extortion[/size], unseen tweaking of the definitions of critical words and keeping the people feeling intimidated and insecure (while charging them extra for extra security measures and less freedom): "Since it is all too complicated and you are probably in the wrong, do what we say, else we will make your life even harder."
Thus:
CLARIFY, VERIFY, INSTILL, and REINFORCE …
Gib - But what happens between those moments. For example, when the sun is at its highest in the sky, does it turn into a pumpkin? On its way from East to West, does it do a few loops in the sky? If you don’t mention these, you might be misrepresenting the truth.
Sanjay - I think that you are confusing here the sun as the centre of debate instead of east and west.
We have nothing to do with what the sun does in the whole day. The relevance of the sun is only that it rises in the east and sets in the west, because we are trying to judge the relations between the four directions with the help of sun’s fixed movements; setting in just the opposite direction from where it rises. That is the limited activity of the sun which is relevant.
But, if the issue is not east/west but what the sun does in the whole day, your argument is right. In that case saying merely that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west would not represent the right and complete picture.
Gib - I suggested a solution to this which I didn’t catch whether you agree with it or not–rather than look for an all encompassing blanket term/phrase that covers all possible negative cases, why not predict based on the specific circumstances you’re under how your statement might be misinterpreted.
Sanjay - Actually, this is exactly what I said and did in the case of atheism/agnosticm/theism confusion. And, this is exactly of what Mucter was trying to take disadvantage.
One need not to mention all negatives but only those which are pertinent with the issue in hand and those, which are most likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
The other and simpler alternative is using sweeping terms like only. Legal documents use both of these ways, depending on the requirement.
Gib - In ordinary situations, I don’t think we’d have to mention what happens to the sun while its in the sky because most sane people wouldn’t misinterpret statements about where the sun rises and where it sets to the effect that it does some crazy and bizarre things while it’s up in the sky. But there are other situations in which you might want to mention a few negatives because it’s likely that those negatives will be assumed by your listeners.
Sanjay - Yes.
Gib - If I say that I’m an atheist, and what I really mean is that I’m agnostic, I’d probably do well to say “I’m an atheist, but not the type that believes there is no God. I just mean I’m not certain about the existence of God.”
Sanjay - Yes again.
You can see how in your case the meaning of the statement tend to change by mentioning one negative truth. And, Mucter was taking disadvantage of that by keeping the definition loose and ambiguous from one end and but very precise and strict on the other end. That is cheating, misrepresentation or propaganda, whatever you like to call it.
Gib - The point is, try to predict how your words might be misinterpreted by others. It’s not a perfect approach, of course, as there can always be ways to misinterpret your words that you would never have predicted, but I think it’s more practical than looking for that one blanket term (like “only”) that covers absolutely every possible negative imaginable.
Sanjay - That depends what the situation demands or which way will serve the purpose better. Why make any option mandatory?
With love,
Sanjay
James,
Most of the governments all over the world tend to do that, more or less. I have seen government tweaking definitions here in India many times.
I do not know about the US and the west, but judicial system always rises to such occasions and takes corrective measures In such situations here in India. Judiciary never conceded to unreasonable government orders, at least so far.
With love,
Sanjay
Yes. It is the judiciary that is supposed to revert to the “spirit of the law” while verifying the validity of laws. But in the USA, and probably most of Europe, the Supreme Courts have been rendered defunct, lame, ineffective. They constitute a committee and all committees are owned by someone outside and independent of that committee. And currently that even extends down to small courtroom juries being misled into believing that they are more restricted than they legally are.
A very large portion, almost all, of the legal trickery and usurping of authority by non-legal people could be removed merely by a campaign to always reference the originating definitions for written laws. That is why Rational Metaphysics begins with stated definitions that may not be violated at any time (“Definitional Logic”).
Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn’t really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book.
The most stabilizing act that Man ever did was to begin documenting; carving and writing. But it isn’t very stabilizing if there are no stable references to what the symbols mean, definitions. The lack of fixed definitions is used throughout the world as a destabilizing agent.
Without documented definitions, every language and anything written in that language is at risk. Where would the world be if, for example, the Greek language was completely forgotten by everyone? Would the “Enlightenment Era” have ever happened? Unlikely.
Most ancient wording is guessed at, deduced by experts gauging on suspected typical usage at the time. How many significant authors actually defined their critical words? Almost none. They presumed and left it to others to just automatically know what they meant by what they said. Due to such wording practices, the Bible is truly understood by very, very few people.
Language is more than that. Language is not merely communication, it is also information, it is a kind of pre-science and pre-philosophy. Without language one could not precisely say what is scientifically and philosophically meant. Language is needed for almost everything humans culturally do. Without language humans were no humans. Without language there were no science at all, no philosophy at all.
If you used langauge only for communication, you would know nothing. If you used language only for information, you would know everything that you want to know but not for what it is worth.
I know all that. The reason why I like your focus on language has much to do with the fact that I studied linguistics, although not only linguistics, and that language is one of the greatest phenomena. Regarding the ordinary language and philosophy, I have to say that Heidegger was the one who used the ordinary language for philosophy the most perfectly; but sometimes the ordinary language is more difficult to use for philosophy than the more elaborated high-level language; however, one should prefer the ordinary language but also use the more elaborated high-level language for pohilosophy, because the ordinary language lacks the elaborated forms of the high-level language and the high-level language runs into danger being misunderstood by the recipients.
The mind thinks before it has anything that you would call a language with which to relay or instill the thoughts. Animals (and people) think on what you could call a “sub-conscious” level even without any language with which to do it.
Yet animals cannot canonize or conceptualize thoughts into words very well and don’t even try until they feel the urge to communicate. Then a motion of sound comes out of them expected to be seen or heard by another. They do not document those utterances thus have no written language.
But the point is that they had the elements of philosophizing; reasoning and methodology, before they even attempted to “in-form” the concepts involved in their thoughts. The in-form-ation comes after there is a thought to be formed and in-formed of.
And even most people are not bright enough to document what the formed concept is supposed to be via explanation, a “definition”: eg “Affectance ≡ ultra subtle influences or changes in the ability to cause changes”. After years, I still couldn’t inspire FC to clearly define his ontological concepts for his VO.
Only human beings - thus no other living beings - are able to use language (I mean the human language - of course!). It was the language that made out of prehumans humans.
Yes, language is REQUIRED for a SOCIETY. And DEFINITIONS are REQUIRED for a SANE society. 
But there are some very influential elements who do not want society to be sane.
No time; a quick note here. So much for Marx’s critique of language, but have you also looked into the language of Marx’s critique?
The greater the “generalization” or cetagorical abstraction, the less it says about anything in particular; the “principles” cannot hope to account for particularity, because they destroy it. The neo-marxist Bourdieu points out that Marx’s own critique is short of his own criticism; the idea of representation had become so general, it falls short of being comprehensive of even more intricate particulars. In hindsight, we see Marx misses a whole domain. Further, from Bourdieu’s critique of Marx’s critique, we see, Language will increasingly need to and will have to become detached to analyze itself, and before you know, you have references to references to references… and philosophy and philosophical activity becoming a pointless orgy. Likewise, an increasing discrimination in consciousness which evolved to aid in survival, results in consciousness and intelligence turning upon itself and threatening that very survival. The gravity of a great consciousness and an aware mind can become burdensome with a high possibility of suicide or decisions against procreation like most philsophers. Understanding this, one does not then say like the foolish suggestion of the hedonist Ecmandu and his elk theory that development and standing apart and distinguishing oneself must be reversed or stopped, as in, philosophy must be taken “lightly” as a game, but affirming that every growth is going to produce the largest refuse material too. Decadence is inevitable.
Now to Bourdieu and Marx:
When the general destroys the particular - Modernism.
When a particular becomes a general - Postmodernism.
Nihilism is both states of over-rigidity and over-fluidity. Or as Satyr put it in another way:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDsfl6ktI0[/youtube]
No time; quick response here. I am no Marxist.
Not that it is relevant to the topic, but that is a pretty good quote.
Fortunately, that does not happen in India. Most of the occasions, courts use to take hard stand against wrongdoings of politicians and governments. I have seen that happening even in Pakistan and Bangladesh too. I am not sure why courts in more developed countries fail to do that.
Your objection is right but let me tell you that many religions tried to make up that deficiency by creating a certain wise and intelligent class, who can interpret scriptures for the folks. That is precisely what sages, gurus, sheikhs and molvies were supposed to do. That system also worked long enough, though now has been failed because that chosen class also intruded by vested interests.
With love,
Sanjay
As I said, they didn’t know how to do it.
I fully accept Marx’s descriptive analysis of historical materialism, but I do not accept his prescriptive theories, his ‘ideals’. You could liken my position to that of many fascists; Marx’s economic theory is essential to understanding the material relations of men, but the emancipation of the working classes from the rule of the free market and the financial elite is a preposterous idea. At most, a corporatism or statism is as close to communism as I would go. If not those two options, then pure anarcho-capitalism (which has and will never happened).
But all this is irrelevant to my quoting Marx earlier. That same criticism you offer Marx can stand for any system of philosophy. Mincing generalities and particulars and categorical abstractions is easy. What distinguishes Marx from any other (he is indeed one of the original four horsemen) is his scathing critique of philosophy in general, and his work stands almost entirely outside of it. He certainly was a precursor to Wittgenstein, only his point of departure from philosophy was that ruling class specialization of language throughout history that has ‘set up’ philosophical thought like it has. Philosophy was to the class consciousness of the proletariat what poison is to a patient, according to Marx (and Rosa … and W to a degree).
I’m fully confident that if Marx was living today, his only regret would be his own assumption that capitalism would necessarily evolve into socialism. Other than that bad call, he hit the bulls-eye.
There is a Marx for every species of intelligent, bipedal life with opposable thumbs, in the universe. Wherever there’s a social species that must appropriate, produce, distribute and consume its environment to survive and reproduce, eventually the theory of historical materialism will appear in the mind of one of that species as their economic relations steadily evolve and change.
Whether or not this individual has a huge beard depends on the physiology of the species.