Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
Language is not used merely to communicate when it comes to philosophy. Language is more of a tool for philosophers. It is necessary to have a unified language to properly express ideas and concepts. Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning. There is a high chance of misinterpretation of key concepts, thereby causing several issues in understanding the philosophy as a whole.
Comments (60)
No actually it's quite the opposite. Having a unified language doesn't limit philosophy rather it will help in its extension. Philosophy is popularly done in English nowadays . Translation of every work is done and research are done after it. By unification I mean the unification of meaning of core concepts. It will make it easier to propagate and in future research. Thing is ,conceptually if you think of it there are languages which uses left and right and languages which used North South East and west instead of it. If you think of something in that manner of thought things get complicated and two conceptual frame work arises causing different conceptual lines.
K, in his writings, uses specific words of the Danish vocabulary. One of them is 'anfægtelse'. I have the Spanish version of Fear and Trembling, and the editor translates and interprets the word as 'fear' or 'anxiety'. However, I decided to search for more information about this kierkegaardian word on Google. It turned out that in English, it is usually translated and interpreted as 'spiritual trial'. All of these definitions are good, honestly. They help me to understand the philosophy of Kierkegaard. But I wonder if we should have a unified concept regarding 'anfægtelse' and what Kierkegaard could have thought about our interpretation of his Danish words.
What does "unified language" mean? Also, describe the function(s), or purpose(s), of "philosophy" as you see it in order to more clearly contextualize your question.
Yes that is exactly my point. If we mistook one concept then the whole philosophy disposition will be in jeopardy.
On the other hand, philosophy is not mathematics. We can't establish universal accepted concepts. For example: Do you think it would be possible to have a unified definition of metaphysics?
The lack of what you call a "unified meaning" reflects a lack of consensus, hence a diversity of opinion. This diversity is the source of the richness of philosophy, not a problem to be overcome. Your proposal is essentially one of linguistic despotism.
Explain what "unification of meaning" means and what you mean by "philosophy" that needs a "unified language" now in order to do what it has done for c2,500 years without an Esperanto-like "unified language".
No, there isnt a need. The varying interpretations and meanings applied to core concepts furthers creativity, exploration, and growth, whereas consensus would only limit it.
However that is impossible for individual minds. As the word "tank" has different meanings to a military officer, a fish farmer, a plumber and a scuba diver.
Meanings are flexible because they're based on individual experience. Language is not discrete as poetry, art and literature demonstrate. Context is always different for each person. The differences may be nuanced or overt.
Maths is a unified language. 1 + 1 = 2 is universal to everyone. Everyone can follow the same rules of mathematics. But as you can see, that's little use fir discussing philosophical ideas especially metaphysical ones. Like what is love, where did we come from, what is the meaning of life.
Likewise, I don't think we should expect the same in the fields of philosophy. Another issue, closely related, is if there should be a unified language for philosophy of mind or some other area.
It might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss.
So what would be the point of needing what you cannot have?
and in the world of philosophy, putting it in jeopardy would likely cause a revival. The Kierkegaardians would be coming out of the woodwork.
The lack of a "unified meaning" to fundamental terms over hundreds (thousands?) of years suggests that the terms may be beyond the ability of language to define in a manner sufficiently precise to yield anything close to a consensus.
And no philosopher worth their salt is going to allow anyone to decide what they mean by the terms they use. It is not going to happen.
Also, the more powerful a language is in it's ability to express and disambiguate information, the harder it is to master the language due to the increased complexity of it's semantics. There were no speakers of Ithkuil for that reason, given that it might take hours for a human to compute a sentence. Hence the invention of New Ithkuil
But usually, when a person can't understand the irregular answer, he quickly says 'flyed' because most of the English verbs tend to end in 'ed' in the past tense. What they do not do is create even a more complex solution.
This is why I see this very interesting. Pinker (like you also stated) argues that when humans debated about establishing a new universal language they all ended up failing because of the complexity. Why do we act this way? Are we complex when we reach maturity?
Quoting Arne
The tragic view of philosophy! Quite possibly the correct one -- we will never get what we need, but, like Sisyphus, we can't stop pushing the philosophical rock up the hill.
But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms. It is as if you were to demand that all paintings be done in oils, and never watercolour. You would be ignored, but more seriously, you would miss some great art.
A will? Obviously not. Back then, people were smart enough to abstract from the words they were reading (or at least the survivalship bias deceives me so), but today they are eager to spend hours debating a concept when they are not even thinking of the same thing when they use the same word.
It is the problem that comes when people think that philosophy reduces to language and yet don't think that all the answers lie in a dictionary.
Something that could also be considered is the notion of 'communities of discourse' which were the context for almost all pre-modern philosophy. For instance the ancient Greek literature, which developed in a culture of shared meanings and a common cultural background. Likewise for Sanskrit in ancient India, and China in Chinese culture. Within those cultures, there was a shared underestanding, within which these kinds of very broad terms had meaning, and which referred back to many centuries of consensus.
It's a complete contrast with the modern world, which is multi-cultural and polyglot and which furthermore is always changing at an unprecedented rate. So, many diverse (not to mention conflicting) communities of discourse now rub up against each other every day. That's where a great deal of space for misunderstanding might lurk. What a scholar, with a Hindu background, might understand by 'mind' might have overtones very different from an American, coming from a different cultural heritage. That's certainly a factor.
But I don't know if a new language is needed, nor could it be practical to devise one. It's more a matter of cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary dialogue and discussion, whereby meanings and intentions can be gradually worked out. And this is actually happening. Anyone who spends time on YouTube nowadays, as I have come to do, will find there is an extraordinary amount of philosophical dialogue and cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary dialogue going on. English - well, it's the only language I speak and understand, and is the global lingua franca - but I don't know if inventing a new one would work. That, I think, was the noble, but not particularly successul, idea behind Esperanto, although if you wanted to launch a philosophy journal in Esperanto, you should probably borrow my avatar ;-)
:lol:
It is a gold mine.
:100: :up:
No unified definition of metaphysics is not possible. But unified meaning of key concept are possible.
That is exactly the problem . When it comes to philosophy it is dealt by philosophers . Philosophers never had a commonality in anything. My intention is not prevent a difference in opinion or criticism , it would be destructive. I am thinking about a unified primary meaning which is accepted by all living prominent academic philosophers so that there is a structure and it is easier for researchers. It doesn't mean one have to avoid hermeneutics. Hermeneutics should be based secondary . This should be well established so that there are no mixing up of concept only the proper interpretation of the particular philosopher is taken and researched and theorized. For example , consider Hegel , he is considered as a concrete realist and an absolute idealist which are contrasting views or how certain philosophers read Kant caused two major areas analytic and continental tradition which are absolutely different in its nature. So it is necessary to have a historical interpretation of philosophy considering each philosophers background , period and how their philosophy developed as the primary interpretations and primary interpreters should work only on the primary works and should not mix the secondary works in the first.
Exactly my point causing , which is causing chaos in the field.
No actually that is not what i intended to express. I was simply saying that the oil paintings should be studied as oil paintings and water color paintings as water color paintings. The problem is sometimes in philosophy because of the lack of unified meanings, oil paintings are compared with water color painting and it is absurd.
So, take "truth" for example. The average person or textbook definition being that which is not false. Truth would be I am writing this reply on my computer and you are now reading it. Factual and absolute events. Of course one could say, seemingly humorously if not annoyingly, "what if I'm not reading this at all and I am dreaming" or something frustrating to that effect ie. solipsism. It's a valid avenue of thought and eventual discussion. Annoying as it may be. So how would one go about trying to "pin down" something as abstract and therefore open to interpretation as "truth"?
Perhaps one would start with "social truths" as in, the way a given society thinks, granted as dynamic as it can be. Slavery was once the social norm. Therefore, it was "right", in fact, a sign of success. Now, it is wrong and a sign of a depraved and psychotic individual. Stealing and lying is wrong because it damages the social fabric. This is a social truth. Or is it? How about something more concrete, such as a mathematical truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Who could disagree with that? It's essentially a scientific truth such as if flame touches your skin the cells in your skin will burn and die. These are absolute truths that perhaps could change (enter science fiction or some sort of futuristic mad science transformation surgery or something).
So there are ways to best begin to attempt to find common ground. Factuality, observation, root concepts based on what we know for a fact we all have in common, things such as sight, sound, smell, touch, sensation, the fact we have a body, the fact that pain is.. painful and largely displeasurable and is both consciously and unconsciously avoided such as a non-conscious reflex of instantly retracting one's limb from a scalding hot surface, or breathing, etc. Of course, every body is different. So. In a way these concepts already exist. But for some reason, at least it would seem, their usefulness in intellectual concepts of any advanced degree seem to be limited and fall short of adequate meaning or multi-faceted proposition.
How would you best attempt to start laying these "ground rules" or "constants", if I understand your desire correctly? It interests you, so you must have thought about it enough to at least throw a few things at the wall and see what sticks, no?
I am not denying the importance of interpretations. Philosophical hermeneutics is a field of philosophy and no one is denying its importance. What i meant was there are intended meanings by philosophers and western philosophy has developed because of the criticism and critique of these intended meanings. It is kind of like a chain reaction . But it will be problematic [for example] if a secondary interpretation of Aristotle is compared to the primary interpretation of Plato . Then we need to pin down these concepts and have clear sense of what, why, when, how and where these concepts developed. I think that is proper way of doing philosophy.
Quoting Abhiram
I agree; hermeneutics, however, is only a method and not itself a language.
Quoting Abhiram
Why isn't 'the study of "the nature of" the study of nature' a "unified definition" for metaphysics?
Conceptualization is important when it comes to philosophy . For that knowing about the right meaning or the intended meaning of the concepts is absolutely necessary. For that reason alone there is a need for the unified meaning of concepts. It is not necessary in laymen terms but become necessary when it reach the status of an academic discipline . Philosophy is and always been an academic discipline and the trends during the different period has polluted philosophy with the ideologies and notions. Be it religion , Science or any trend that has been prominent at a particular period. when we learn about a concept we need to be aware of all these factors and how it shaped the idea .It is a linear way of thinking for me. It doesn't mean thinking is linear. Thinking is obviously non linear. But it should be based on the linear or connected to the linear. For that we need the right and unified meaning.
for example
multiple souls and universal soul
individual consciousness and cosmic consciousness
visita vedantic concept of atman and brahman
Because metaphysics is literally , beyond physics and no one has any doubt about that definition . It is simple accurate straight to the point , less abstract and easy to conceive . It for me is primary and every other interpretation could be there but initially based on it. So that when definition changes according to the philosopher. The philosophical revision wont be making errors in the conceptions. There are clear distinctions clarity and systematization without making it scientific or linguistic , not limiting it and allowing it to propagate freely . This would make philosophy a revolutionary field.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889798
We have a unified language here - basic symbolic logic - and entire books worth of agreed-upon usages of that unified language, and yet you still get people explicitly misusing it while being completely and entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that they're misusing it.
I'm not saying unified languages are not useful, they're just not a panacea. They can't help everybody.
You keep saying this like it is a thing. What you are talking about is an artificial language suitable for application within a definite and restricted conceptual space. Exactly the opposite of what philosophy aspires to, understanding of the nature of universals.
You're quite mistaken, Abhiram. 'Metaphysics' literally is tà metà tà physikà (transl. the books after the books on nature)^^
After the Physics ~Andronikos of Rhodes, not; "beyond physics" (woo-woo). :roll:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics ^^
Not only was it not successful, but I would wager that Esperanto was in fact detrimental to the development of a common (European) language. Around and before the time of Esperanto, there were multiple conlangs being developed, Volapük, Latino sine flexione, and others with some extent of success. Come Esperanto, and all those languages essentially die off in favour of it. One hundred years later and Esperanto has not managed to go mainstream. Not that it was Esperanto's creators fault, just a misfortune of history.
:lol:
But at times, Formal Logic can also present ambiguous conclusions due to its limitations. Hence it is good to have both tools, and use them together when one is lacking in the clarification process.
This is especially the case with the classic symbolic logic. It can sometimes mislead the folks or be abused for presenting illogical sophistry as truth. That is the reason why there are so many different types of Logics available for us to use e.g. Modal Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Epistemic, Dynamic, Intentional, Institutional, Description Logic .... etc.
Another point that you must note is that, Logic is not an effective tool for those folks who are psychologically motivated to push their own ideas to other folks. For them logical arguments and proofs would mean nothing for changing their biased views on certain ideas they wanted to push to other folks. They won't accept logical truths as truths. They will keep denying verified and proved truths as fallacies.
Reasonings and Logical proofs are only effective for those folks who are authentic and willing to accept truths as truths.
For your question do we need a unified language in Philosophy? I would say No. It won't make difference what language or formal logic you use. If some folks are psychologically biased on something or some ideas, then no logic, no reasoning and explanation can change his views or enable them the point. IE psychology overrides reasoning in philosophy in some cases.
Fully agreed
:lol:
Good :nerd:
I mean, we're all wrong about some things, right? So "someone willing to accept truths" means someone who can describe to you the conditions for changing their mind, for accepting that they were wrong.
I have laid out the conditions for changing my mind - show me the pages from the textbooks. What conditions do you have that could demonstrate to you that you're wrong? What would convince you?
We know it's not concrete logical examples, Oxford university, Stanford university, or other people systematically disagreeing with you here in the forum. So what could it be?
If you can't be convinced you're wrong about this, I don't think you can be convinced you're wrong about anything.
The evidence that you are psychologically biased is based on the fact that, you don't even accept my proposition that we can agree to disagree, and end the discussion. Because obviously no matter what logic and explanations were offered to you, you cannot see it, or accept it. The only way for the closure would be we agree to disagree. That is a fair solution. But you refuse to accept it.
I don't think agreeing to disagree makes sense here, because it's simple logic. It's not opinion. It's not even obscure knowledge. It's easily demonstrable. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. If we can't come to an agreement on this, then one of us is truly intellectually hopeless.
I think your insistence on agreeing to disagree is a pretty big sign that you know you're wrong. If I say 2+2=4, and you say 2+2=5, then of course you're going to propose to agree to disagree. I don't have any need to do that, because I can demonstrate the validity of my idea. Only the guy saying 2+2=5 is motivated to agree to disagree, because proof of hopeless for him.
I know you've looked in your books
I think it impossible to have a "unified" language where terms are fixed in meaning. Even if it were possible, I would be against it. Achieving fixed meaning with strict definitions seems obvious and simple but meaning is also created through context, connotations, intention and a litany of other factors. I don't know how language would function otherwise, and philosophers should be especially defiant. "What does it mean to be free?" or "What is freedom?" would be questions muted by a "unified" language that dictated the singular meaning of freedom.
It would reduce misunderstandings to give the term "freedom" a singular meaning, but few would or should accept a singular meaning. To discuss the meaning of "freedom" and other concepts is a core, important part of philosophy, and the development over time of its meaning is the reward earned by such debate.
A precise term should mean little more than that its truth conditions were fulfilled. If a shape is a "triangle" then that shape has the features of a triangle, it has three sides, three angles. Philosophical terms aren't like that, for something to be "beautiful", it must be beautiful, yet the truth conditions are personal and contextual. It's preferable to allow speakers to express their own ideas using the common word, trillions of nuances referred to with just one word, very efficient, there's no agreeable alternative.
In my view, commonness of misinterpretation in philosophy is due to the lack of context when exploring or referring to concepts. If I'm talking about "fairness" in the context of elections, one would be able to use the context of "elections" to gain a good sense of the type of "fairness" I was talking about. Same deal if I was talking about "beauty" in the context of a discussion about dog breeds. Philosophers do bullshit like "discuss the essence of beauty" and that's what makes interpreting their meaning accurately impossible. Without the context that language so heavily relies on, misinterpretations are unavoidable.
In a certain sense, perhaps.
But it's also part of being in this field. To try to contextualize (not mere) words, but concepts associated with the words.
Actually it isn't . If philosophers could systematically work to make a unified primary meaning it is not a difficult process and it is easily achievable. My view is not to diminish any concept or reducing it to single meaning. I was only trying to systematize philosophy. Every interpretation should be given importance. But there should be primary set of meanings. It is something like the paradigm shift proposed by Thomas Kuhn . It will be a lot easier when philosophy become an academic discipline.
You can understand anything it is an intellectual process. You have to express it with language. You need language to think. Therefore language is very important to philosophers. Language is the chief tool of philosophers. To understand the nature of universals you need language and when it comes to philosophers they understand a concept in different ways , sometimes there is a possibility that they misunderstood the concept causing future generation to continue making the mistake eventually ruining a whole lot of philosophy in the process.
Actually it is the collection of books containing Aristotle's physics. By after physics , he meant that it is beyond the physical one or comes after the physical. See this is actually the reason why told we need unified meanings. Two similar words but because of the scope of the scope of philosophy . Concepts could become ambiguous pretty quickly.
Same thing happen in the case of science. Scientific views could be biased too. There is a whole lot of research going on in the field of philosophy of science about the biases of science. But it doesn't stop science does it.
Wrong. Apparently you didn't read (or understand) the links I've provided ...
Quoting 180 Proof
Aristotle (d. 4th century BCE) never used the title "metaphysics" which was designated centuries later (1st century BCE).by the editor of his surviving works Andronikos. Again: the books after the books on nature (re: Aristotle's Physika is his book on nature (from physis² in Greek)).
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/physis ²
At least one hundred years after Aristotles death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) titled those fourteen books Ta meta ta physikathe after the physicals or the ones after the physical onesthe physical ones being the books contained in what we now call Aristotles Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotles philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered the physical ones, the books about nature or the natural worldthat is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world.
:eyes: :smirk: