#2,
Let me ask you this. If you ever felt like you understood a philosophy, how would you prove it? You see the attempt begets itself, and we enter the language game. There is no more evidence that what is intended is expressed in the thoughts of the speaker as there is of an understanding of the intention in the ears of the listener. It should be obvious to the philosopher that language is a catalyst for actualizing an effect- a material significance- a physical application of a theory to the world by a joint effort: language serves the function of extending intention into space to unite other intentions for actualization. We do mean something when we speak, but we need not invest so much in lucidity if the alternative results in empirical effects, if even roughly and not exactly. Keep it simple. This is to say that rather then spending time conversing in extremity, that being an overcomplicated complex of language, one should ‘dumb down’ the vocabulary so that its corespondance is evidenced more easily, or, so coordination between intentions can yield definite results.
The problem with philosophy is that often a specialized vocabulary has adverse effects on what its intentions, those of the speaker, wish to communicate. And do not be fooled. Even in an apparant cooperative exchange of technical jargon, which is evident by a lack of objection, it is still uncertain that there is true understanding, rather what is happening is a consistency within a web of language- that being the declared understanding of the terms therein in such a way that the many possible meanings produced by the greater expanse of language increases the probability that sense is made out of it, however, again, proving coherency is impossible. The progress of a discussion can appear to be homogenous in the absence of objection, but the more complex it is, the greater the area for ambiguity, though this doesn’t compromise the discussion. It passes unstated but nonetheless in consideration and without emphasis.
A language dissipates into thin air if it cannot form action through corespondance, which in turn is evident insofar as two combined efforts produce tangible results.
Do you understand why I am an anti-philosopher? It is not because I lack the conceptual continuity to be one, but that I see no results from 99% of it. I’ve got a thesaurus too, but I am also aware that there needn’t be fifteen ways to say one thing. Observe the dictionary: every word denotes another word which acts as its definition, ad infinitum. This is why I deduce language down to an empirical function and determine its value by its material effects in the world. A ‘conversation’ never did anything. It is work that creates. I am a worker, not a philosopher.
You’re invited, but only if you take back those terrible things you said about Jean-Paul and Simone.