One of the reasons I've spent so much time studying philosophy of language, is, obviously, that language is the medium in which philosophical discourse takes place. It seems to follow, that having a good understanding of the way language works, in terms of concepts and meaning, is crucial to having a clear understanding of not only philosophy, but other subjects as well. — Sam26
Sure, but I'm skeptical that analyzing language is some sort of cure for philosophical problems in general. — Marchesk
The question is, which or what philosophical problems are we talking about. — Sam26
'm of the opinion that the majority of philosophical problems are not primarily linguistic in nature. — Marchesk
I would like to get feedback from those of you who have a solid philosophical background, or who have a solid science background. The reason I ask this, is that I would like to keep the discussion on a higher level of discourse. — Sam26
There's no such resort with philosophy, hence it is entirely wrapped up in the understanding of language. — Pseudonym
We each understand our terms in the same way. — Dfpolis
If you can describe a philosophical problem and then define each word you just used in a way that will gain even a substantial minority of agreement then I'd be prepared to concede this. Thus far, I've not found such a thing to be possible — Pseudonym
to understand 'the philosophy of language' is to have to understand a great deal more than language. — StreetlightX
But I don't think this is actually the case for every problem in professional philosophy — Marchesk
Is that just wishful thinking, or do you have some reason to think this? If you could provide an example of some philosophical terms whose meaning you think is widely agreed on (with a rough idea of what that agreed meaning is), that might help. — Pseudonym
Define 'decision' without begging the question — Pseudonym
Define a 'line of action' without assuming cause and effect. — Pseudonym
Define what it means for something to be 'possible' without presuming either determinism, or some arbitrary constraints. — Pseudonym
I don't think we even agree what it is to 'understand' a thing. — Pseudonym
All philosophical problems are linguistic in nature — StreetlightX
Philosophy of time: presentism, block universes etc. — fdrake
Metaphysics of science: emergence, character of natural law — fdrake
Political philosophy: the vast majority of issues in it. — fdrake
Logic: foundations of mathematics — fdrake
Ethics: real world ethical issues — fdrake
If you could provide an example of some philosophical terms whose meaning you think is widely agreed on (with a rough idea of what that agreed meaning is), that might help. — Pseudonym
And you're sure what an 'essence' is? Have you read no debates on the meaning of 'subjective? — Pseudonym
Just hoping I haven’t joined in without proper qualification. Presuming you yourself intend to take part in this 'higher level of discourse' perhaps you could let us know what level of qualification you are so that we know the target we're aiming for? — Pseudonym
A decision is a commitment to a course of action based on a consideration of alternate courses of action. — Dfpolis
A "line of action" is a continuous sequence of events. — Dfpolis
To be possible means that the contrary is not necessary. — Dfpolis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.