Philosophy of language - Split from "Why Atheism Cannot..."

I can observe the almost circular route of conversation about certain subjects

Interesting there's no "philosophy of language" section in these forums.

Philosophy of language covers entire thinking of philosophy. Knowledge requires a platform to operate, which called language. Word is a window to its knowledge and feelings generated. The same gap is from word to real, since the word apple is not real, so the gap is the problem. To solve this problem are we not creating innumerable problems? Knowledge is the outcome of interactive principle which is result oriented in its conceptual form. Therefore, concept drives humans to its result. Opposites ingrained in language, so pessimism verses optimism, order – disorder, theism – atheism, and so on rooted in language but not anywhere in nature. Essentially languages constructed for memorizing past events and experiences so to refine them in present. If there is no transformation to intelligence, this knowledge remains a mere tin.

Sekhar wrote:

Essentially languages constructed for memorizing past events and experiences so to refine them in present. If there is no transformation to intelligence, this knowledge remains a mere tin.

But memorizing past events and experiences so as to refine them in the present is only one of the uses of language. Another use is ritual performative utterances as when people greet each other in prescribed polite ways, or communally worship their gods.

Another use of language is to stir up feelings in others as when clever advertisers are trying to sell something, or when politicians want people to fight a war.

Yet another use of language is when people who share certain ways of life use the sort of utterances which legitimate that solidarity.

Those alternative uses of language are how humans actually behave as social animals.

Knowledge requires a platform to operate

What if the platform defines the knowledge?

EMTe wrote:

What if the platform defines the knowledge?

Please would EMTe give some examples of 'platforms' besides that of a specific living language?

Knowledge requires a platform to operate

What if the platform defines the knowledge?

It can't define it, but it both limits it and enables it. Definition is part of knowledge. All definition is based on a massive construct of dominoes each leaning on another. The relationship between the signified and the sign is arbitrary and definitions are built by using other arbitrary symbols. As languages are not innate the ability to learn languages IS innate, and the logic of grammar, common to all human language has universal qualities that are pre-figured by the "platform". SO basic ideas such as a sentence containing a subject and object; that some words can be employed to describe whilst others to point to a thing, are a result of the structural quality of the cerebral platform and are likely to have been prefigured before the emergence of the spoken language.

Of course it defines it. Philosophy is purely the language discipline. You discuss abstract notions which were created, because your ability to use language allows you to create them. If there wasnt a single human on Earth the "sense of existence" idea werent exist also, because there would be nobody who can create it, name it and discuss it. Philosophy as a discipline is an artificial creation, just like roads and buildings (the difference is that while the latter creations are useful - philosophy is completely useless) which exist only because there are creatures who can build them.

Of course it defines it. Philosophy is purely the language discipline. You discuss abstract notions which were created, because your ability to use language allows you to create them. If there wasnt a single human on Earth the "sense of existence" idea werent exist also, because there would be nobody who can create it, name it and discuss it. Philosophy as a discipline is an artificial creation, just like roads and buildings (the difference is that while the latter creations are useful - philosophy is completely useless) which exist only because there are creatures who can build them.

The 'platform' ( a concept you have not even defined properly), is not capable of defining anything , unless you think it is a conscious agent. Allowing definition is completely different from 'defining'. The 'platfom can limit and enable the possibility of definition it simply cannot have a hand in that work. Language is not static - it is praxis. I it formed by the praxis of the conscious agent engaged with the world.

If you really think philosophy is 'completely useless' then it begs the question why are you contributing to a Philosophy Forum.

I like to drive people angry and insecure. From my experience (not only online) this is what constitutes "Productive Philosophical Conversations".

I like to drive people angry and insecure. From my experience (not only online) this is what constitutes "Productive Philosophical Conversations".

I'm glad you are having fun. But whilst you characterise Philosophy in this way you will never get any more out of it than shouting a giggling.


I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it. Edith Sitwell

This is the bitter kind of fun, if it can make you less upset.

This is the bitter kind of fun, if it can make you less upset.

I do not understand what you mean.

Maybe you really don't. Or you understand, but cannot show it, because you build your online persona on forum and prefer to be not thought-provoking. Who knows?

Maybe you really don't. Or you understand, but cannot show it, because you build your online persona on forum and prefer to be not thought-provoking. Who knows?

Maybe you were not being clear?

Leaving aside the fact that you can say what you want with language or simply lie. The general problem with language is not only that its use creates false problems in our heads, but that both our language and brain serve on the basic level the same purpose as in animals - brains process the informations received from the environment and tell our body how to react in response to these stimuli and language is used as a tool of communication. Thus, discussions like "whether God exists" or "what is infinity" have no sense, because these problems exist only in minds of properly developed creatures and words you read or write or say are merely a very complex vocalization. So, in short, majority of your output on this forum and majority of output of "great" philosophers has no sense, except certain topics which concern law, ethics, but these are not philosophical issues. They're fun as mind exercises though, similarly to playing chess, scrabble, sudoku or point'n'click adventure games.