The language of "philosophy"

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was suprised when I discovered how big this issue may be. An example:

If you translate the english word random to norwegian, the word would be tilfeldig simple as that.

But if you translate the word tilfeldig to english the result is:
“accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic”

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to! Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?

Do we need a completely new language, the language of “philosophy” or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficent and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

There should be a global language in my opinion. Different cultures can stay the same for the most part. I’m sure it would prove to be more beneficial rather than not.

yes, language is the game…

philologists tend to be a crazy bunch…

-Imp

Circa Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein would say that all philosophy is just a language game. I take that to further mean that all philosophy is an [inter- and intra-] translational language game. No one truly has the exact idea in their mind, and they are further limited by the language they speak in conveying that idea. So much is lost between communication of ideas purely and also by the barriers of language.

But you are right, interpretation and translation is a major problem in philosophy. We are usually left up to argumentative context (the basis of the expounded argument, such as preceding arguments or premises) to determine what exactly a philosopher means, but often that does not help when you consider that words such as “random” exist as a concept that has not relational counterpart except to that of non-random.

So really, you must ask yourself: In the context of this proposition, does the philosopher mean apparently random, absolutely random, frequently random, etc?

It really depends on context.

Yes, yes, and YES!

enter deconstruction

-Imp