Having a unified language would limit the extension of philosophy. By the way, what specific language are you referring to? English? Because it is obvious that the concepts differ in Greek, Portuguese or Spanish, and these languages have philosophical concepts which are unique in their vocabulary, etc.

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.

There are some philosophical concepts which can't be unified at all. I will use an example: The philosopher I read the most is Kierkegaard.
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.

Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy? — Abhiram

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.

I think it would be nice if, at the very least, there was a base layer of normalized words with universal meanings. Unfortunately, I think with the nuances that come with philosophical thinking, it's borderline impossible to have a truly unified language. Language is built on layers of relationships and metaphors, and from the time we're all babies, each person is building a completely distinct set of relationships and metaphors from any other person.

Yes that is exactly my point. If we mistook one concept then the whole philosophy disposition will be in jeopardy.

Please refer earlier answers I am answering some of your questions there. You can't attribute a single function or purpose for philosophy .

I can only ask why you think it is in jeopardy. I personally think if I started a thread on Kierkegaard, we all would have the opportunity to exchange our ideas. I don't see the philosophy of Kierkegaard in 'jeopardy' because his concept of anfægtelse lacks having a unified concept. Furthermore, this is why the discussion becomes interesting.

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?

Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning. — Abhiram

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.

By unification I mean the unification of meaning of core concepts. — Abhiram

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 isn’t a need. The varying interpretations and meanings applied to core concepts furthers creativity, exploration, and growth, whereas consensus would only limit it.

having a unified language means having unified semantics and understanding of all words used. That is to say the values, associations and meaning of words would have to be objective and determined and identical for all users.

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.

Is there a unified language for science? You can say there is a unified language for physics or biology or some other sub-field, but there is no unique language for science, because it covers too much territory.

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.

philosophers would be the last group of people to ever agree to a unified language.

So what would be the point of needing what you cannot have?

I don't see the philosophy of Kierkegaard in 'jeopardy' because his concept of anfægtelse lacks having a unified concept. — javi2541997

and in the world of philosophy, putting it in jeopardy would likely cause a revival. The Kierkegaardians would be coming out of the woodwork.

Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning.
— Abhiram

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. — Pantagruel

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.

Experimental synthetic languages such as Ithkuil and Lojban were designed to improve upon the semantic deficiencies and limitations of natural languages, in the knowledge that many of those deficiencies being responsible for the creation of philosophical pseudo-problems. However, a a learner will inevitably rely upon their mother tongue as a meta-language when learning those synthetic languages, so it is hard to see what the payoffs are in learning such languages in the short to medium term, especially considering the fact that one can reason and communicate poorly in any language.

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

I fully agree. Steven Pinker also points out interesting arguments regarding meta-linguistics. According to him, whenever we see a linguistic challenge or a word we have never read before or a verb we have never conjugated, we tend to overcome the challenge using the easiest way of our native language, logically speaking. For example: children (and non-native speakers like me) frequently make mistakes in irregular verbs. It is obvious that the past tense of 'to fly' is flew.
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?

So what would be the point of needing what you cannot have? — Arne

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. — 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.

A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

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 need? Yes, otherwise we would not be organising tens of conferences every year to discuss whether Kant meant Anschtiszchirenung or Schschschschschung when he used the word Gügügügüheit in page 198 of Pferthoch auf der Klëugschein — note that these humorous non-words are not a mockery of the admirable German language.
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.

:ok:

Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning. — Abhiram

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:

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. — Wayfarer

It is a gold mine.

A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms. — unenlightened

:100: :up:

No unified definition of metaphysics is not possible. But unified meaning of key concept are possible.

Isn't it necessary for the development of philosophy.

Philosophy as a academic disciplines should gain prominence for that we need to make it accessible to everyone. For that a unified language is necessary so that there won't be confusion. Hermeneutics should connected to the key concepts so that the authenticity won't be compromised

I don't want the elimination of hermeneutics . Hermeneutics should be like the part of an organic whole which is the concept.

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. — Benj96

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.