The use of idealistic language; "meaning" and "uselessness"

[Led Zeppelin]

i write a lot of poetry. its like therapy to me. philosophy is worthless for questions of the soul so i just use literature as a way to explore my heart

I love how you decry philosophy as idealist and useless and then say things like "questions of the soul" and "explore the heart".

[mel]

I love how you decry philosophy as idealist and useless and then say things like "questions of the soul" and "explore the heart".

Actually, marmot says that philosophy is useless for "questions of the soul", not useless completely, and not because it's "idealistic".

On topic, I like poetry, it's a great way to express yourself.

[Led Zeppelin]

I wasn't referring to what he wrote there, but to his general stance on philosophy.

Evidently you haven't read any of his posts on the subject, or you would have known his position on the matter.

[mel]

I wasn't referring to what he wrote there, but to his general stance on philosophy.

Evidently you haven't read any of his posts on the subject, or you would have known his position on the matter.

lurk moar?

[black magick hustla]

I wasn't referring to what he wrote there, but to his general stance on philosophy.

Evidently you haven't read any of his posts on the subject, or you would have known his position on the matter.

:shrugs: i think literature is better for this questions. both are nonsense. doesnt mean that nonsense cannot be meaningful tho. nonsense is a technical term in logic. the thing i said was nonsense doesnt mean its not meaningful. the issue about nonsense being "meaningful" tho is that it only is agreeable if you have already had similar ideas. like existentialism, for example.

[Led Zeppelin]

:shrugs: i think literature is better for this questions. both are nonsense. doesnt mean that nonsense cannot be meaningful tho. nonsense is a technical term in logic. the thing i said was nonsense doesnt mean its not meaningful.

I don't really want to derail this thread or anything and that's why I'll split this to Philosophy, but you can't change the meaning of words in the English language as you see fit.

Either something is nonsense to you, or it's meaningful. It can't be both at the same time, and no references to "technical terms in logic" can change that fact. Unless perhaps you believe in double-think. I thought you as a person interested in Wittgenstein's ideas would know at least this regarding the use of language, and therefore wouldn't be interested in obfuscating literal meanings of words for the sake of some metaphysical idea of what seems to be a "unity of opposites" in your mind (a unity of considering something to be nonsense and meaningful at the same time).

So yes, "exploring your heart" and "questions of the soul" may come over as meaningful to you (which means you do not consider it to be nonsense, obviously), but then it's a bit ironic that you then deride all of philosophy as being "idealistic and utopian", when in fact there are philosophies based on science which at the very least contain none of the idealistic phraseology you consider meaningful (for obviously you cannot "explore a heart" nor is there any "soul" to have questions of).

You have to admit that when you continually criticize whatever philosophy you want for the type of language it uses, saying that it is idealistic and utopian and not scientific, and then go on to use language which is extremely idealistic and utopian itself, is a bit hypocritical.

I like the irony in that though.


the issue about nonsense being "meaningful" tho is that it only is agreeable if you have already had similar ideas. like existentialism, for example.

That doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying that a person who advances from basic math to advanced math only recognizes the meaningfulness of the advanced math because he's already had "similar ideas before" from basic math. It doesn't really mean anything in real terms, because if I have had certain ideas about, say, existentialism, it doesn't preclude me from learning more about them and agreeing or disagreeing with them as I do so. Me finding something agreeable or disagreeable isn't based on thin air, it's based on certain factors such as factual evidence and coherent argument. This applies to most people. So saying that someone can believe in what you consider to be "nonsense" because they already had some similar and agreeable ideas about it beforehand is meaningless. You can't have any ideas about some thing, agreeable, disagreeable or similar, if you haven't known about that some things existence in some way or other (through observation, learning, social intercourse, etc.), so everything can be reduced to "believing in nonsense" (including math, evolution, etc.).

It seems like you are using philosophical-sounding language to obfuscate this issue, which I thought you were against...

[black magick hustla]

I don't really want to derail this thread or anything and that's why I'll split this to Philosophy, but you can't change the meaning of words in the English language as you see fit.

Either something is nonsense to you, or it's meaningful. It can't be both at the same time, and no references to "technical terms in logic" can change that fact. Unless perhaps you believe in double-think. I thought you as a person interested in Wittgenstein's ideas would know at least this regarding the use of language, and therefore wouldn't be interested in obfuscating literal meanings of words for the sake of some metaphysical idea of what seems to be a "unity of opposites" in your mind (a unity of considering something to be nonsense and meaningful at the same time).

So yes, "exploring your heart" and "questions of the soul" may come over as meaningful to you (which means you do not consider it to be nonsense, obviously), but then it's a bit ironic that you then deride all of philosophy as being "idealistic and utopian", when in fact there are philosophies based on science which at the very least contain none of the idealistic phraseology you consider meaningful (for obviously you cannot "explore a heart" nor is there any "soul" to have questions of).

You have to admit that when you continually criticize whatever philosophy you want for the type of language it uses, saying that it is idealistic and utopian and not scientific, and then go on to use language which is extremely idealistic and utopian itself, is a bit hypocritical.

I like the irony in that though.


I don't really want to derail this thread or anything and that's why I'll split this to Philosophy, but you can't change the meaning of words in the English language as you see fit.

Of course not. But words dont have specific meanings and it entirely depends on the "language-game" they are used. when i say nonsense i mean it in the formal logic way - in the logician language game. poetry is nonsense, literature is nonsense. Saying that "x is y but x is not y" is nonsense. The problem when something is nonsense is that it cannot be counter-argued. For example, a tautology which is always true.

When I write poetry or when i say nonsense statements like that I am not engaging in an argument. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trying to prove that the sun is the center of the solar system. It is a therapy to me. That is why I like poetry with a lot of imagery - it "shows" rather than "says" in the sense that it is presenting you with pictures rather than an argument.

Wittgenstein says some things can be only be shown and others can be said. Literature "shows" a lot through similes, metaphors, imagery etc. Some existentialists show when presenting dreadful imagery to try to communicate their feelings about life, etc. They are not presenting an argument though. The only one who would agree with an existentialist is someone who already had similar thoughts. If you present Camus to the Pope he might follow the ideas in the sense that he knows the traditions where thiss came from, but he will never agree with them. He can't. He has never felt like that. There is a reason why Wittgenstein liked Kierkergaard a lot. Although Kierkergaard is full of philosophical jargon that can get tiresome, he uses a lot of imagery. He shows. There is a reason why he does that. Existential questions are private questions - they happen outside the public discourse of language. You cannot make a science out of existentialism. You can only hope someone else has had similar ideas and feelings than you if you wish them to understand you.

The problem arises when there is a group of people who call themselves philosophers and who claim some scholastic expertise on the nature of "truth" - whatever is that supposed to mean. Their thesis cannot ever have a conclusion because they lie outside the logical limits.


when in fact there are philosophies based on science which at the very least contain none of the idealistic phraseology you consider meaningful

Actually, I like a lot philosophy of science and language. However their methodologies are entirely different to traditional philosophy and a lot of them are some sort of anti-philosophies, so to speak. Kindof like Marx.

[Led Zeppelin]

Of course not. But words dont have specific meanings and it entirely depends on the "language-game" they are used. when i say nonsense i mean it in the formal logic way - in the logician language game. poetry is nonsense, literature is nonsense. Saying that "x is y but x is not y" is nonsense. The problem when something is nonsense is that it cannot be counter-argued. For example, a tautology which is always true.

When I write poetry or when i say nonsense statements like that I am not engaging in an argument. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trying to prove that the sun is the center of the solar system. It is a therapy to me. That is why I like poetry with a lot of imagery - it "shows" rather than "says" in the sense that it is presenting you with pictures rather than an argument.

Alright, so you use "nonsense statements" to convey a certain feeling or emotion, but not to better convey a certain argument. I can spot a certain contradiction in that as well, for if you wish to convey that you are sad or happy, you are the same time conveying an argument, the argument being your sadness or your happiness. Is that not a fact? Or to use your own example, if one wishes to use a lot of "nonsense statements" in order to better convey the factual argument of the sun being the center of the solar system, does that detract in any way from that factual argument?

No, of course not.

Actually, if you watch some shows on Discovery or read popular science books, this method is employed widely by scientists to explain complex processes and sciences in a more simplified and recognizable form to people. It doesn't solely explain it, of course, but it helps in conveying the explanation.


Some existentialists show when presenting dreadful imagery to try to communicate their feelings about life, etc. They are not presenting an argument though. The only one who would agree with an existentialist is someone who already had similar thoughts. If you present Camus to the Pope he might follow the ideas in the sense that he knows the traditions where thiss came from, but he will never agree with them. He can't. He has never felt like that.

There are two issues here that need to be addressed.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently "dreadful", "dark", "sad", "depressing" or otherwise gloomy about existentialism or the message it tries to convey. Sadly this is the popular (mis)conception of it due to a mainstream "I've heard of it somewhere, isn't that..." type of idea about it, which is entirely false.

As Sartre explained in his Existentialism Is A Humanism (I won't mention Camus here because I haven't read anything by him and his view of existentialism is not the same as Sartre's, which is the one I know about), the objective of existentialism is to show that life has no inherent meaning that is supernatural. That you yourself as a person, a conscious human being, makes that meaning...or at least should. Existentialism is a reaction to alienation, and it doesn't claim to provide a "cure" for it by philosophy, but by radical socio-economic change.

Which is why Sartre was a proponent and believe in the Marxist schema of social revolution.

Tell me, what is dreadful about the idea that you yourself are responsible for your own actions (which you yourself have chosen consciously) and that there is no supernatural meaning or essence to your life, besides the one you give to it? What is dreadful about the idea that people make their own history, not as they please, but within the bounds of material conditions?

There is nothing dreadful about that, it's liberating. It liberates humanity of dogma of all forms. Existentialism posits that existence precedes essence, instead of the other way around. This means that your essence is not determined before you are born, but after it, by yourself (within material bounds of course).

It's not a coincidence that existentialism is Marxist, atheist, and progressive socially in every way as a philosophy. In fact one could call it a philosophy of anti-alienation, which, once alienation has been destroyed through social-revolution, would have rendered philosophy itself useless since its task is done, so to speak.

Marxism is an anti-philosophy, as is existentialism, which is an extension of it created as a reaction to alienation (not just in philosophy, but also in the arts, literature etc.).

Nothing dreadful about that at all.


Existential questions are private questions - they happen outside the public discourse of language. You cannot make a science out of existentialism. You can only hope someone else has had similar ideas and feelings than you if you wish them to understand you.

You are taking the term "existentialist" too literal, and thereby ignore the actual meaning of the philosophy behind it. When an existentialist says that existence precedes essence, meaning that there's no inherent meaning to a persons life before they exist (as all religious people believe), is that not scientifically proven fact? Well, yes, it is, but if we go by what you just said it's a private question and therefore it can't be proven...

No, don't be ridiculous. In fact Sartre cites and bases all aspects of his philosophy on science. There's a reason he said, as a dialectician, that it cannot be applied to nature.


The problem arises when there is a group of people who call themselves philosophers and who claim some scholastic expertise on the nature of "truth" - whatever is that supposed to mean. Their thesis cannot ever have a conclusion because they lie outside the logical limits.

Sure, but if you, like Marx and Sartre, base your philosophy (which is in essence an anti-philosophy) on facts, on science, then that charge can no longer be brought against you.

Only the charge of using idealistic or "nonsense statements" in conveying your message can be brought against you, but you should know that the same charge can easily be brought against Marx as it can against Sartre.

Have you read the more philosophical works of early Marx? Take a look at German Ideology and the amount of "useless statements" Marx uses there to convey a very useful truism.


Actually, I like a lot philosophy of science and language. However their methodologies are entirely different to traditional philosophy and a lot of them are some sort of anti-philosophies, so to speak. Kindof like Marx.

Good, because I am only interested in anti-philosophies as well, since they are the only movements which have no inherent desire in perpetuating themselves and therefore have no inherent reasoning to obfuscate and make-up idiotic things without any basis.

It was Marx, I believe, who said that the aim of philosophy is to take the fight against the metaphysical world to the conditions of the real world, i.e., the struggle against religion and other reactionary philosophies would have to be transformed into a struggle against capitalism and other reactionary ideologies. The transference from the realm of ideas to the realm of reality is one of the corner-stones of anti-philosophies, since ideas are then transformed into actions, and actions change the world.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

All reality is is throwing ideas at people and hoping they agree with you. Science just has pragmatic methodologies. The questions philosophy attempts to address fundamentally determine the political and ethical climate of our world. It's not like we can leave them there.

Resolving disputes in language and establishing truths in language are fundamentally the same thing. They ultimately amount to getting everyone to agree with you, and getting your agreement to correspond to results everyone can clearly observe.

Determining whether killing someone was unjust or just does have observable consequences that are dependent entirely on your belief. Philosophy doesn't produce results because it produces results for particulars, by definition, rather than universal results, and a result is defined by being universal. Occasionally, it's suggested philosophy stumbles across new sciences by accident. That's something, if true.

[RebelDog]

If anyone is interested Chomsky covered some of this ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHS1NraVsAc

[JimFar]

I outlined Rudolf Carnap's views on this and his take on both Heidegger (whom he despised) and Nietzsche (whom he admired) at:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=798788&postcount=6