And? Science was a form of natural philosophy. Newton called himself a philosopher, so did Galileo. Words are arbitrary descriptions. — h060tu

No. Words don't become what you want them to. That is solipsism.

No. Words don't become what you want them to. That is solipsism. — jacksonsprat22

Actually, they do. Calling a word "word" as opposed to "logoi" or "kalam" or "mot" or "slova" is arbitrary. Totally and completely. God didn't make English. It's just a sociological reality.

We are using English. You did not invent that language.

We are using English. You did not invent that language. — jacksonsprat22

Humans invented English. Based on nothing.

The irony of you using language games to argue philosophical points in a discussion about Wittgenstein is apparently totally lost on you.

he irony of you using language games to argue philosophical points in a discussion about Wittgenstein is apparently totally lost on you. — h060tu

Wittgenstein never said language use was arbitrary. Words have meaning within any 'game.'

Wittgenstein never said language use was arbitrary. Words have meaning withing any 'game.' — jacksonsprat22

That's basically the same thing as being arbitrary. I can play a language game where a word means something you eat on a hot sunny day, or I can play a language game where that word means something obscene and vulgar. That basically is no different than arbitrary.

That's basically the same thing as being arbitrary. — h060tu

Absolutely not. Chess is a game. You cannot move the king like a queen. Not arbitrary.

Absolutely not. Chess is a game. You cannot move the king like a queen. Not arbitrary. — jacksonsprat22

Within the logic of that game, you cannot. But you can change the game's logic. The game's logic is arbitrary. There's no law of nature that says chess needs to be played in a specific way. It's arbitrary.

You can play a hack of Pokemon, or use cheat codes, play online, glitch it to hell and back. Arbitrary.

Within the logic of that game, you cannot. But you can change the game's logic. The game's logic is arbitrary. There's no law of nature that says chess needs to be played in a specific way. It's arbitrary. — h060tu

No, chess is universal and has the same rules. You can play fantasy chess but both players have to agree on the rules.

No, chess is universal and has the same rules. You can play fantasy chess but both players have to agree on the rules. — jacksonsprat22

Chess is universal? lol Ok dude. Good luck convincing aliens that chess is universal. Forget aliens, how about other humans on remote islands?

You can play a hack of Pokemon, or use cheat codes, play online, glitch it to hell and back. Arbitrary. — h060tu

you can cheat at chess, yes

Chess is universal? lol Ok dude. Good luck convincing aliens that chess is universal. — h060tu

What aliens?

What aliens? — jacksonsprat22

Like, any of them. Because any possible alien will not play chess "universally" like we do. That's silly. There's no planet in the ether where some alien overlord castigates his subjects for moving the pieces from white boxes to black ones. It's preposterous.

Like, any of them. — h060tu

Never heard about any aliens.

Never heard about any aliens. — jacksonsprat22

You're totally missing the point. You made a statement about chess' "universality" which is a metaphysical statement about how chess always is and always will be. I'm saying that you're really confusing or not understanding, what you're saying. Chess isn't "universally" played in any way. It's played in this way at the current time, as far as we know. It's not universal. And that makes it arbitrary, by definition. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. But so far every point I've made goes over people's heads, so maybe it's my fault for wasting my time.

You're totally missing the point. You made a statement about chess' "universality" which is a metaphysical statement about how chess always is and always will be. I'm saying that you're really confusing or not understanding, what you're saying. Chess isn't "universally" played anyway. It's played in this way at the current time, as far as we know. It's not universal. And that makes it arbitrary, by definition. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. But so far every point I've made goes over people's heads, so maybe it's my fault for wasting my time. — h060tu

I do not think you understand what Wittgenstein meant by language game. If you think he meant they are arbitrary then you know nothing about Wittgenstein. I tried to be nice, but clearly you are ignorant.

Chess has rules. If you do not play by the rules it is not chess. Why is this hard to comprehend?

I do not think you understand what Wittgenstein meant by language game. If you think he meant they are arbitrary then you know nothing about Wittgenstein. I tried to be nice, but clearly you are ignorant. — jacksonsprat22

Wittgenstein believed two different things at two different times. So, even he didn't understand anything about Wittgenstein. But that doesn't matter. I'm not debating how Wittgenstein understood anything. I'm pointing out how it actually is.

I know Wittgenstein believed that within the rules of the game, as long as you followed those rules, then things had meaning and truth. But I'm saying those rules are total nonsense. So I know what he said, I'm not saying what he said. I'm saying what I'm saying.

Chess has rules. If you do not play by the rules it is not chess. Why is this hard to comprehend? — jacksonsprat22

Okay? So if you're missing a King piece and you decide to use a pawn instead, it's not chess anymore? You're really arguing for a Platonic form of chess right now? You can't be serious.

But I'm saying those rules are total nonsense. — h060tu

Chess is not utter nonsense. I think you really don't know shit about Wittgenstein.

Chess is not utter nonsense. I think you really don't know shit about Wittgenstein. — jacksonsprat22

I mean, I read him. And I've made it pretty clear I don't agree with Wittgenstein. So I don't see why you keep saying I don't know anything about him. I'm not him, I'm not pretending to be him, I never claimed to be him.

Okay? So if you're missing a King piece and you decide to use a pawn instead, it's not chess anymore? — h060tu

Players agree on what the piece is--but only in friendly games. i don't believe you could do that in a tournament.

And I've made it pretty clear I don't agree with Wittgenstein. — h060tu

Don't agree with him on what? He never claimed a language game is arbitray.

Players agree on what the piece is--but only in friendly games. i don't believe you could do that in a tournament. — jacksonsprat22

Right. But what about a tournament held 4000 years in the future? Do you really think it would play out the same way it does today? Is online chess, still chess? There's no pieces involved. Just clicks on a screen. What about mental chess? Totally in the mind. This isn't objective. There's nothing objective behind this.

Don't agree with him on what? He never claimed a language game is arbitray. — jacksonsprat22

You're right. I DID. I keep saying that. Jacques Derrida makes the argument that all language is arbitrary. There are no words that self-define themselves. All words are defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words ad infinitum. Ergo, all words are arbitrary. There are no words that are self-defined. There is no outside text.

You're right. I DID. I keep saying that. Jacques Derrida makes the argument that all language is arbitrary. There are no words that self-define themselves. All words are defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words ad infinitum. Ergo, all words are arbitrary. There are no words that are self-defined. There is no outside text. — h060tu

I do not think Derrida argued that language is arbitrary.

I do not think Derrida argued that language is arbitrary. — jacksonsprat22

Then, maybe your problem is the word "arbitrary" and not actually the argument I'm making. Do you know what it means to be ad hoc? Or arbitrary? Do you know what that means?

Witty made some cool contributions to philosophy worthy of study like hundreds of other philosophers out there too :)

7.8/10 philosophy stars, would recommend. Goes well with a pinch of salt to taper off the harder edges.

I think he believed metaphysics was incoherent. — jacksonsprat22

That's a bit to quick. He did think that there was not much of import that could be said about metaphysics, but he did think it of the utmost import. Hence, what could not be said must be show.