I find many of the posts on ILP completely unintelligible. But so do I find most Philosophers. I think of Philosophy more of a game of words.
For example I will never ever understand what Dan~ wrote here:
Maybe someone can understand this, but is that necessary to use lots of intersecting words, is there a meaning behind this kind of wording? Sometimes it seems to me that Philosophers contribute nothing to society or to the common knowledge, they are just spinning a web of words and phrases, and then they are get caught.
Dan~'s formulations here are plain english. I think perhaps you do not grasp their contexts. The first is an objection to rationalist morality, very broadly speaking, which includes (but is not by any means limited to) Kant, Aquinas, and Plato. It seems that some fleeting familiarity with these writers would make Dan~'s comments clear. His expression is of great elegance, which is usually considered a virtue in philosophy. Your objection here might be to that sort of economy of expression, or it might be simply a confusion born of a limited vocabulary.
Dan~'s second quote is an essentially Nietzschen thought. While I am generally not a fan of the passive voice (which Nietzsche uses often) it has its place. It is both the result of, and an aid to, perspectivism. Again, a familiarity with perspectivism as context for this comment will help.
Philosophy, formally speaking, is not saying anything you want, any way you want to say it, about anything. It is a specific undertaking, literacy in which is as essential as it is in any other field of study. That literacy may take many forms, and I do not mean to suggest that reading every philosopher is either wise or necessary to attain that literacy. But within the context of the study of philosophy, Dan~'s comments make sense, whether we agree with them or not.
I was just gonna make a reply about philosophy sometimes being word games but at other times being substantial, when I saw faust’s sig! I’m flatttered faust - how long have you had it like that?
Chimney - I can certainly agree that many philosophers are merely playing games with words, including those that I cited. Some games have an objective outside the parameters of the game, and some do not.
Dan~ - I agree. I find it puzzling that the examples given in the OP were two of your most cogent expressions, and particularly well-written by any measure.
Makes you wonder what you have to do to make yourself clear.
Some philosophers think that everything–philosophy included, is a game of words. Of course, you’ve just participated in that game if what they say be true.
If it is all a word game, then the issue quite becomes the words themselves. My personal opinion is that in terms of “ultimately solving things” philosophy will never succeed–but that’s not the interesting part to me. The interesting part is how people attempt to go about it, and sorting through those bits and finding the pieces I find compelling or meaningful–and understanding why I think other pieces are not so compelling or meaningful. Playing the “word game” if that be what it is, teaches me more about me, and I can’t imagine a recreation that has more import than that.
I think (so long as one’s statement makes sense) that the complex wording that philosophers tend to use is merely an intense drive to be as descriptive and precise as possible in making a specific point.
Philosophers often struggle to find the right words to use to describe things. This is why I think many ILP-ers use complex wording ---- for the purpose of clarification, not confussion.
Exactly- I mean, I could pick out several completely nonsense phrases from Dan’s recent posts - but these two actually make sense!
Why do people think they can go on to a philosophy website and understand what is being said without having learned any philosophy? They wouldn’t do it with a neuroscience website, or a physics website, or any other discipline.
The problem is connected to the concept words of formal philosophy where a single word may contain paragraphs of detailed explanation, and the use of common expression associated with philosophizing (not formal philosophy). If there is confusion, it is the intermixing of formal terms in a undisciplined statement - not that any of us are guilty of such a thing! Sorting through the layers of possible meanings behind the words can be difficult, if not impossible at times. A great deal depends on the intent of the member posting, and his/her intended audience.
W.C. - Just want to mention that the irony of using a quote by Aristotle does not escape me. Too bad you couldn’t find something similar from the master of mumbo-jumbo himself, Immanuel Kant. I give Aristotle runner-up status, though.
tentative - your point is well-taken, but these quotes are not very good examples of it. Philosophers use common words in a technical sense, yes - some more than others. Some take it to ridiculous extremes (my favorite is “isness”).
Common words with uncommon meaning… Everyone can look up the word “being” in the dictionary, but philosophically the word can carry two or three thousand words of explanation and only within the context of looking at a specific philosopher. The next philosopher uses being in an entirely different way, again all dependent on their different constructs. That is the confusion, at least as I see it. Formal philosophy uses common words, but as short hand for complete points of view. For those not familiar with the concepts behind those common words, any statement that makes perfect sense to the student of philosophy becomes incomprehensible.
I’ve run into this talking about Taoism with those who haven’t read and studied Tao De Jing. I can write a sentence that makes perfect sense to those who have read and studied, and sounds like pure jibberish to those who haven’t.
I don’t have any particulary good answer for the problem other than to say read and study, which I think is the answer when attempting to look at commentary on any philosopher/philosophy.
Again, I agree. But let us not forget that Dan~ didn’t use the word “being”, or any other technical term. There is such a thing as literacy in philosophy, which cannot always be had cheaply - of course. But there is a also such a thing as literacy.
Don’t worry, I don’t understand half the shit Dan~ says either. However, I cannot say I’ve ever shared this opinion of yours. Quite the contrary, the overwhelming majority of philosophy is built upon the rigid appreciation of true communication; the last thing a philosopher wants is to be misunderstood. Yet, that said, he is not thereby in position to compromise his words so that (pardon me) novices may understand.
Well, maybe you are right and many philosophers and ILP posters just use a professional jargon.
And I am aware of the ill chosen quotes. I don’t understand them, but there are many other things on ILP that I can actually understand but they seem ridiculous. For example long threads where people seek the definition of some english word like “Wisdom” or “Strengh”. Are you linguists or philosophers? It is what Faust said, that sometimes it is only important for the game itself but has no value outside of it. So what is it for?
It seems like philosophers are trying to have precise termins for things too dynamic and complex. So when you try to write a set of rules and formulas for the universe, and build one theory on the other, at the end you will come to some ridiculous and unintelligable conclusions.
Also, aren’t there many outdated termins? The world is changing, yet many here constantly quote Aristotle and other ancient phislophers. I understand the nostalgy, but ask yourself, does that help our understanding of the universe in any way?
I know I have no philosophers training, so maybe I write here lots of bullshit, but thats how I see things for now.
I’m flatttered faust - how long have you had it like that?
Sorting through the layers of possible meanings behind the words can be difficult, if not impossible at times. A great deal depends on the intent of the member posting, and his/her intended audience.