I always though that talking about "correct" definitions of words was the same as talking about the "correct" thing to eat for breakfast but I'm willing to be wrong. Do words in natural languages have "correct" definitions?

I've spent the last nine years on a journey to create a universal language that started with my passion for semiotics, linguistics, and conlanging, fueled by my early education in Chinese and a lifelong pattern-finding mindset.

My mission is to distill reality into its simplest concepts to form the basis of a universal language, accessible in spoken, written, and sign forms. This endeavor seeks to merge fundamental ideas with meaningful sounds and symbols, transcending traditional language barriers.

I'm reaching out for insights, feedback, and potential collaboration from this community to refine and realize this vision. Your expertise and perspectives in language philosophy, semiotics, and linguistics could be invaluable in shaping this project. I'm eager to hear your thoughts and suggestions.

Hi there,

Need some help understanding these theories for an essay, any help much appreciated 🙏

I am very excited to learn about the philosophy of language, but every book I touch is very hard for a beginner. Can any suggest books or other material that are 101 level in this field may be 201 as well. thanks

About Quine's criticism of the notion of analyticity dependent on word meaning...

Is he arguing that such a notion is contingent on the dynamic, conceptual nature of word relations which are difficult to define without resulting in circularity?

So to explain why "dogs are animals" (dog being a hyponym of animal) or "all bachelors are unmarried" (unmarried being a property of bachelors by definition) is true we have to explain what exactly it is about the word relations that make it so that these statements are true? And by defining these word relations by examples of such relations we may result in circular reasoning?

That doesn't change the fact that the truth values of these sentences follow from knowing the meanings of the words and their relation though...

I'm in my 3rd year and I'm preparing for my finals which is in a week and i can't find materials that I can study from (the books have some really difficult language which I'm having trouble understanding). I'm reading John Hospers for this but I can't seem to find out enough information on very specific questions like this. Pls help

Do we need a diagnosis to be justified in feeling we belong to a space? Especially since many people don’t seek out help because of reasons that are often results of the very same disorder. Besides insurance purposes, what is diagnosis meant to be doing? At both a psychiatric and semantic/pragmatic level? Do our doctors, who may or may not vaguely be fellows of the same professional associations grant us this fellowship and communion? How? Through a speech-act?

Considers languages as necessary for perceiving the Universe, the signifier slippage induced by language, and the manner in which truths are defined within the axioms of language.

Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4077540

Abstract: A Map of the Universe explores the fundamental laws of the Universe, the mechanisms which allow a subject to perceive the Universe, and the features of post-perception existence. The Map is constructed from a set of axioms that optimally capture knowledge of the Universe with respect to the constraints of perception.This project is situated inside a historical continuum of metaphysical exploration and draws on findings from the fields of logic, semiotics, mathematics, metaphysics, philosophy, and literature. Out of the Map falls theories of perception, consciousness, determinism, self, the role of language, and the nature of the Universe as a whole.

https://preview.redd.it/xq88mfuyx3xa1.png?width=744&format=png&auto=webp&s=f077892835f7df2bdc6faace40603f74019c3b26

I'm working on a 4000-word essay for my undergraduate Philosophy of Language class, and the topic is 'How does polarization undermine effective communication?'. I'm having some difficulty finding articles that address this question within the Philosophy of Language. Does anyone have any suggestions that may lead me in the right direction?

Recently, I was thinking of getting into philosophy and studying it at university, however, one of my friends, who is a scientist (physicist) ridiculed me for thinking about this as he believes philosophy is useless or worthless at best and actively harmful at worst. He sees science as being the only or best source of knowledge. He justified this by claiming that science makes progress and philosophy makes no progress.

I was therefore wondering has philosophy of language made any progress at all in the past few centuries? If so, what are some examples of this? Has it made any recent progress in the twentieth century/twenty-first century? Does it have any practical benefit to science (or society) today? Thanks.

Hey! Is anybody else struggling to reconcile talk about meaning in 'traditional' phil of language (e.g. Donaldson's 'meaning is knowledge of truth conditions' & the role concepts play there) and different theories of concepts in cogsci/psychology/AI (i.e. resemblance/ prototype/microtheory) This has always been tricky for me and I've finally mustered the courage (under the cloak of anonynity) to sound stupid and BEG for someone to bridge this for me. I'm aware people like Fodor straddled the two, but dont yet feel competent enough to engage with his work critically... any reading suggestions?/SOMEONE EXPLAIN pls

I was wondering how do you picture a logical picture in general. And if you do it spatially - like my professor - what is the logical picture of a negative proposition like: It doesn't rain outside.

What objects do get involved (everything except rain?) and how can i imagine it. Can you make a picture of negation of something? Do you imagine a crossed picture where it rains - exaggerated. Or do you think about every other possible situation except rain at once? - since it must be a logical picture of a fact which is just a combination of objects.

I hope the question makes sense. The thing is I dont really get the idea of a logical picture i think.

Timothy Williamson isn’t exactly known as a Wittgenstein fan, but has anyone drawn the connection between some of his work/positions and some of Wittgenstein’s remarks? Thinking especially of the unanalyzability of ‘knowledge’ into further N/S conditions.

Also and perhaps more interestingly, his view that the a priori/a posteriori distinction might exist but still isn’t “useful”

I am trying to understand something, and cannot find people in my circle to address it. I am not a philosopher. But I have seen this phenomenon many times myself, and it seems pretty central in life.

When we have proper terms with which to meaningfully discuss something in a certain way, it radically facilitates our ability to discuss that thing. It can open up whole new vistas in terms of ways to discuss it.

And yet, we can certainly try to think about that thing, prior to having good terms to discuss it with. My best example is systems thinking. I am in systems thinking course right now with Fritjof Capra and learning all the work that has been done over the past 70 years or so to describe how life behaves, using some much more satisfying models than the ones we had in the past.

A great example is the emergence of chaos theory in the 1960s to describe weather patterns. Around this time, computers were becoming powerful enough to help modelers accurately represent these very complex nonlinear equations that closely represent the behavior of chaotic systems. Since then, a really fascinating body of study has evolved in biology, chemistry, and elsewhere to describe the behavior of living systems — networks of interrelated parts, each organism dynamically maintaining its homeostasis by interacting in unpredictable ways with its environment.

Reductionist models simply cannot adequately describe the emergent properties of elements in relation to one another. For example, take the atoms that make up a sugar molecule. On their own, they do not taste sweet; the sweetness comes into being as an emergent property of their relationship.

So... years before I had ever learned what systems theory was, I had an intuition that there were complex, dynamic interrelationships between things that were important, but were not well described by the thought patterns prevalent in my culture at the time.

Just watching the linguistic philosophers video you shared, they seemed to suggest that any abstract concept is purely a human construction, but I am sure I am oversimplifying. At any rate, it is clear to me that I could have intuitions about these systems-level phenomena prior to having any great language to describe them. And indeed, you could say that these systems behaviors are abstract, but not really. They are not purely conceptual at all. If you take a walk in nature and appreciate how everything dances harmoniously and flows in interrelationship, that is clearly accessible to our "mind", which of course includes our body, our whole senses, and that physio-spatial sense that we share with other creatures. You can feel it, to put it a certain way.

So there were plenty of ways for me to experience and "sense" that there was something I could observe in life, even though that was not described well by the language I had available to me at the time. And while the phenomenon was not as abstract as "truth" or what have you, it was also certainly not as concrete as a rock or a table.

So to repeat myself, I had intuitions about the dynamic, interrelating weblike nature of life before I had great words to describe it. And yet... Here is the main point, which I think is so interesting. Once I started learning the language of systems thinking, it became much, much easier to think about it.

There. was a rapid acceleration in the connections I could make, and how I could make the knowledge that came from those connections useful. Sure, part of it was feeling I wasn't crazy. But it was more than that. Once I had a conceptual framework and vocabulary, it was much, much easier to understand life in terms of those interrelated flows. Once I inherited the embedded knowledge around how to see the world in this way, it facilitated my own understanding greatly.

So, I find this phenomenon so interesting, and potentially so helpful, and I was wondering who speaks about this? Linguists? Philosophers? Anthropologists? Honestly, I have no idea. I was wondering if you might be able to point me to the right (practical) areas where people are talking about this phenomenon.

I thank you for any help you can provide.

The wikipedia page for "alphabetical order" merely states when the alphabetical order started being used (1st millennium BCE), but my question is HOW the order of the letters was decided upon. It can't have been arbitrary... it is how it is because of certain factors. Any ideas as to what those factors may have been?

Considers languages as necessary for perceiving the Universe, the signifier slippage induced by language, and the manner in which truths are defined within the axioms of language.

Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4077540

Abstract: A Map of the Universe explores the fundamental laws of the Universe, the mechanisms which allow a subject to perceive the Universe, and the features of post-perception existence. The Map is constructed from a set of axioms that optimally capture knowledge of the Universe with respect to the constraints of perception.This project is situated inside a historical continuum of metaphysical exploration and draws on findings from the fields of logic, semiotics, mathematics, metaphysics, philosophy, and literature. Out of the Map falls theories of perception, consciousness, determinism, self, the role of language, and the nature of the Universe as a whole.

​

https://preview.redd.it/1gyiusaf7qs81.png?width=1099&format=png&auto=webp&s=54dec4c734ca9803ccaaaa2ddfdff799d7d26a56

for example, if i have to know what is definition of "straight line", it turns out that I cannot define that.

I would like to invite you to a philosophy discord server. For teachers, students, and autodidacts.

The purpose of this discord chat is dedicated to the engagement of philosophical discourse and the exploration of ideas in the history of philosophy. Our main goal is to become more knowledgeable about historical thinkers and ideas from every philosophical domain through interpersonal dialogues. We are not a debate server. Argument is a method used by philosophy, but this isn’t to be confused with debate. The latter is competitive in nature, whereas the former is a cooperative endeavor. Philosophy is a group project that aims to determine what is true, and this server is a place for this activity. 

https://discord.gg/NyesZ6e5cp

Invite link is hopefully permanent, so you won't have to worry whether the link is working if you're reading this sometime in the future.

See you all there!

I wanted to understand the expression and use of the term ‘taking.’

I will give 2 examples in contrast to illustrate the confusion.

Jim: How are you getting home?

Billy: I am taking a cab

Tommy: where are you going?

Jeff: I am taking a shit

In the first instance, we could say the meaning of ‘taking’ would be Billy is claiming a specific taxi for himself to use. Billy is taking the cab and no one else is. At least right now.

In the second example, Jeff is not really claiming his own excrement, we would all agree he has ownership of that object. We would also not assume that once Jeff exits the restroom, he would be holding his excrement as it was taken with him. In all instances of ‘taking a shit, aside from the disorder of Coprophilia, the shit is left and disposed of, not taken.

So why do we say, “I am taking a shit” when everyone is “leaving a shit?”

Understanding as I lay this out, it begs the question of whether the phrasing frames them as equals, but insight on that would be appreciated, as well.

Long and short of it, Wisconsin has a jury instruction for criminal trials that defines what a reasonable doubt is. Part of that instruction is “you are not to search for the doubt, you are to search for the truth.” I’m a defense attorney and armchair philosopher, and my belief is that phrase fundamentally misconstrues the relationship between doubt and truth: it puts them at odds, whereas doubt is a part of a subjective person’s concept of truth living in an objective world. Legal system assumes an objective reality, so that’s a base assumption to my question.

Fundamentally, it encourages people to convict based on what they believe most likely happened, not what happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

There’s great work by a fella named Michael Cicchini on the issue, including with a social scientist demonstrating this effect (plus, you wonderful nerds will love that after a group of prosecutors published a real weak response, his response called them “sophists” in the title).

Nevertheless, Wisconsin Supreme Court and a concerning number of lower Courts along the way said a-ok, and now we have a broken system.

I’d love help in trying to make the argument above (of course contrary arguments are more than welcome), and hopefully find a way back to an honest system (an honest system would already say that if the words don’t make a difference on how people understand reasonable doubt—defined by the courts generally as “cause for hesitation equal to that in the most serious matters of life,” e.g. deciding to make a marriage proposal—then there’s no harm in omitting them either).

I love general discussion, and I’m not discouraging that in any way, but I’d really appreciate sources and as specific citations as possible for a brief. I want to make the tightest, clearest argument I can.

I genuinely apologize for starting with “long and short of it.” Thanks, all.