>pol is is either neglectful toward fixing terms for discourse and/or outright hostile toward it. Usually dismisses it as quibbling or useless semantics.
>Good chance that 95% of pol has never taken a philosophy of language class.
Is there more than a correlation here? Or do you guys get to use your "but no one on pol is serious" cop out?
>Good chance that 95% of pol has never taken a philosophy of language class.
Yeah no shit, we aren't complete retards.
cuz u need Philippines of language to talk about jews and niggers on a chinese japanese 70's discoskating forum
As you can see, language isn't all that important, you know what I've said, that's all you need, right? Or are you some sort of autist who desperately needs a corectly spelled sentence and prose to get his point across?
>terms for discourse
We're more concerned with facts, you gigantic faggot.
Sup Forums doesn't read books.
You needed to take a philosophy of language class, OP? That's about as remedial as it gets. Did you discuss the importance of having terms for colors? Did you discuss how there is a variation for "you" in damn near every language? If you want to be smug and pretend you're better than other people, it helps if you're actually smarter than them.
The only philosophy I need is redpill philosophy.
Terms are fixed to objects you retard. You have to have an agreed upon method for regimenting the meaning of terms lest you create a giant equivocation machine. But you guys are just like SJWs in that you attempt to win arguments at the rhetorical level.
The gravest irony is that you refuse to fix even the meaning of the term 'facts.'
Holy ad hominem. I'll wait for your actual argument against philosophy of language.
What do you suggest, that we do as Hobbes did and exhaustively define words, before we post. Or should we just go with normal dictionary definitions like normal people.
>we have to agree about what facts are
Please, please, kill yourself. This is pure sophistry. Suicide is the best option for you. Yo're wasting your parents' money.
Back to /qa/ you butthurt faggot.
sage
No, providing abstract definitions for terms doesn't progress inquiry far. The method I adopt follows two maxims: 1)If we are to use some term T in a given discourse, we must first fix the meaning of T according to some agreed upon set of non-negotiable, essential properties and 2) If one chooses to remain vague about some term, then he must be clear that he is being vague.
I ain't on some Russelian/Fregean bullshit.
Facts are not facts by virtue of an axiom, you stupid shit.
If you understand Wittgenstein, you can just stop with philosophy.
Read some Wittgenstein then get back to me about that, "abstract," thing. Philosophy is always searching to describe truth. In truth, how does thought develop in an individual? What is the process? When you have a cohesive thought, I'll be waiting.
I'm providing a method for fixing terms to objects, not describing the formal properties of facts. Keep up.
So dictionary definitions of words, I'm ok with that.
> fixing terms to objects,
ok how about OP = faggot
How do you think they're able to write the fucking dictionary? Lol it's not like they just think of a word and go "hmmmm yeah that's what this will mean this year."
Also, the dictionary isn't normative. That's where phil of language comes in.
>argument against philosophy of language
what is the argument for it?
Yeah I'm down with that.
cop out is defined as "intelligent argument"
You're asking me for the one argument for phil of language?
>for the one argument
no I am asking for any argument
Woooo equivocations amirite!?!?
The purpose of philosophy is to teach us how to reason properly. It's normative. Phil of language is a species of philosophy proper, thus it teaches how to reason properly about how we use terms so that we can have successful communication.
You'll never win the battle you're trying to fight.
The only place that meanings of words are absolutely agreed upon is in mathematics.
You need to hang out with math autists if you want to talk like that.
I'm not going to precisely define the meaning of faggot when I'm talking about you, OP. Because before you know it the thread is deleted or has reached its limited # of posts, or gets buried away at the back of the catalog.
>so that we can have successful communication.
I have no problem successfully communicating now
and by the way all philosophy other than might makes right and the only thing I know is I know nothing is absolute garbage
>simultaneously arguing for and against equivocations
As CS Peirce one said (roughly) "anything this side of pure number theory is vague"
One of my other favorites: "It is easy to be certain. One need only to be sufficiently vague." See the second tenet of my maxim.
I'm not asking for precise definitions. You'd know that if you could follow a simple argument.
>says someone who probably doesn't study philosophy.
While we're at it, is it okay for me to call bullshit on quantum mechanics even though I don't study it?
Problem with definitions in political discourse is that they are apt to change on whims. Ex: I'm not right wing, I'm a fascist! National socialism will bring an end to capitalist corruption of our homeland.
Please tell me why philosophy has any value
Maybe you should keep a dictionary with you so that when every single time someone posts a sentence you can look up every single word in the dictionary.
At Sup Forums we are usually pretty clear on what we are talking about. If you don't understand what a rapefugee, ((( ))), or a FUCKING LEAF means, then lurk more.
P.S. your philosophy degree is worthless have fun at Wendys
>pol is is either neglectful toward fixing terms for discourse and/or outright hostile toward it
Given your definition of 'fixing the terms for discourse' = bending over and taking it in the ass from scum like you, while allowing you to hatefully shut down any speech or opinions with which you disagree as you make every effort to persecute those who have the audacity to voice their disagreement yes you're goddamn right we're outright hostile towards it.
>Good chance that 95% of pol has never taken a philosophy of language class.
95% of people who've ever mattered have never taken a philosophy of language class. In fact fuck that - I was thinking simply of 'philosophy' - in reality it'll be 99.99% of people who matter have never done so.
Be honest OP, you tipped your fedora as soon as you posted this pompous garbage didn't you?
But that's not the necessary output of political discourse. I'm with you that that occurs, but I'm arguing that political discussion is more general and thus more vague, so in that case we ought to pay even more attention to how we're using the terms.
That's what I mean by an equivocation machine. It's not like the objects our terms are fixed to undergo radical nature changes every month or two. It's people that misuse language.
Stop taking an internet website so seriously.
Strawman. I'm not asking for precise definitions. I've said this at least three times now.
We work
>Not realizing that Sup Forums has developed a post-ironic language of its own
kys desu senpai
This thread is so fucking reddit
This. Please an hero, OP.
What im saying is that I agree but am unsure on a practical level how one would go about doing that. Whenever I get into a discussion about politics I always preface a word like "liberalism" with a concrete idea such as "freedom of human individuality in the realm of social autonomy"- but there are different varieties of liberalism, there are different varieties of conservatism. All Americans are liberal in a classical sense for example whilst simultaneously being economically conservative (for the most part). What ultimately happens is group think and tribalism which lead to illiberal ways of thinking, facts have no room when faith, "muh anti-whatever cuz muh tribe" and "muh internal biases" come into affect. Arguing politics is therefore akin to chasing shadows, most people are dumb and don't need to be convinced of some noble idea or philosophy but rather want to be subjugated by a King- a superhuman figurhead who can bring order to society.
This
The only reason someone wouldn't want to do this, would be out of ignorance or a desire to be manipulative.
You ever have those group projects in College where your entire group does nothing and no one wants to be leader? Why is that? Because leading gives people social anxiety, they want to be told what to do, how to live, how to complete their college assignments, what manner to complete those said assignments, what is morally righteous and what is morally evil. Most people cannot think for themselves because critical thinking literally causes too much anxiety for most individuals. For me, I've learned to control fear, learned how to manage people by building a company, learned how to control and manipulate people's emotions to buy my products and invest with my company. I do this because I have what most people lack. Philosophy is a tool that can help rulers and the movers/shakers of society act in a just/kind manner but is otherwise useless to plebs. Modern US politics is just a matter of good marketing, fancy slogans, a good smile, shaking the right people's hands etc. - but this isn't what makes a king and that's ultimately why our current group of leaders are weak/cowardly.
>Because leading gives people social anxiety, they want to be told what to do
Nice false dichotomy
"if people don't want to be leaders, they obviously want to be lead."
You're also conflating leadership (a person who inspires you to do a thing) with rulership (a person who coerces you to do a thing).
>Philosophy is a tool that...is otherwise useless to plebs.
Philosophy is useful for everyone. It sharpens your thinking skills and helps you to separate what is truth and what is not.
If more people studied philosophy, and particularly logic, it would be much harder for politicians to use sophistry to manipulate people.
You are incredibly idealistic, you must temper that idealism or it will get you in a lot of trouble in business.
Call it "false dichotomy" all you want but most people need direction which is why the military structure is so incredibly successful.
>but most people need direction
There's a difference between guidance and rulership. You're still conflating the two.
#NotAnArgument
Why do we need generals if everyone has the innate ability to lead? Why shouldn't I just let my secretary decide my company marketing campaign, why don't I let her handle my day to day businesd operations? You are naive beyond words, my secretary has no desire to lead or manage which is why I pay her to write notes.
How your first year at college, dumbshit?