philosophy is philology

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

Click to expand...

I guess that would be my concept of "reality" itself, first of all. It´s my own (although strongly influenced by others). I do not think often about it, unless I am exchanging ideas with others.

I have my own definitions of ethical and ratonality, or more like my own creative analysis of these conceprts.

They are more like clusters of related terms in a network, rather than specific definitions of individual terms standing alone.

Define one term and you have to drag others along too, like inviting a family to a party.

Or like those flashing on and of insects (fireflies), which try to flash as a group, I am doing my philosophy display and hoping others will join in with the frequency I set. Maybe I ought just to go my own way and be satisfied with my own light?

I suppose "my philosphy" is an acquired behavioral adaptation, and suits me best. After all, baseball is much more exciting (?).

Words represent concepts which form the frames in which we think. But the vast gulf between what's real, spirit God, and what is a mere shadow, mortal man and his material realm, must be bridged with the scaffolding of conceptual thoughts which are to a greater or lessor degree erroneous.

Man is barely real, not really that far removed from our animal ancestors. Our words and thoughts are grunts and snorts to the high celestial beings of the spirit world.

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

Click to expand...

That is why we need to have a definition for a term.

Even the term is defined in several ways by a dictionary, when we use that term in a particular case, we need to specify ONE and ONLY ONE definition to it. Otherwise, miscommunication is an avoidable consequence. This includes a miscommunication to yourself (i.e. not able to think straight)

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

Click to expand...

Existence: The realm of things that exist.

Consciousness: The faculty that perceives the things that exist.

Identity: The specific set of attributes that each thing that exists possesses.

Primacy of existence: The fact that everything that exists is what it is and does what it does independent of anyone's conscious action.

If every child were taught this from their earliest years, instead of the opposite, as they are taught now, The world would be a far, far better place.

True Scotsman said:

Existence: The realm of things that exist.

Consciousness: The faculty that perceives the things that exist.

Identity: The specific set of attributes that each thing that exists possesses.

Primacy of existence: The fact that everything that exists is what it is and does what it does independent of anyone's conscious action.

If every child were taught this from their earliest years, instead of the opposite, as they are taught now, The world would be a far, far better place.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this? As I see it there is interdependence in actions and behaviors across peoples.

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, we often assume others mean the same thing as ourselves in the use of a particular word. I'm not a believer, though, that words drive philosophy. Too often they get in the way, or demands for definition can be used as a debate tactic.

With that said, wrestling with the meaning of words can drive productive discussion. It can be a means for communicating the more difficult nuances of an idea.

sarxweh said:

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

Click to expand...

It's a community effort: a) & b). I'm a visual learner/thinker, so until I need to communicate with someone, I have no need of words. I'm often translating my visually based thoughts into words, and given that a picture is worth 1000 words ... it's a difficult process.

sarxweh said:

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Click to expand...

It seems to me much of the discussion here revolves around misunderstood contrasts:

philosophy vs. theology
assumption vs. deduction/induction
monism vs. dualism
experience vs. logical structure

I derive definitions for abstract concepts both from borrowed ideals and those shaped from my own thoughts and experiences. As for more simple matters, I tend to either completely borrow or completely synthesize

beotos said:

Could you elaborate on this? As I see it there is interdependence in actions and behaviors across peoples.

Click to expand...

Hi beotos,

The principle of primacy is a fundamental principle. You have to think of this definition in terms of fundamentals. By things I mean rocks, trees, atoms, ice cream, toothpicks and people. By "independent of anyone's conscious action" I mean actions like wishes, likes, dislikes, dreams, prayers or desires. Take for instance the tree in my front yard. It is what it is and does what it does independent of my conscious actions. It is a Cottonwood and every year it produces cottony seeds that get everywhere. No matter how much I might prefer that it would not, it still does. It is slowly dying because it got struck by lightning several years ago. I wish it hadn't but that doesn't change the fact that it did. When it is gone, no amount of wishing, wanting, praying or regretting will bring it back. That's what primacy of existence means. The things that exist don't conform themselves to our wishes.

I think it is the most important 3 words in the world and if it were taught to every person explicitly when they were young then it would have a profound effect on the world for the better.

True Scotsman said:

Existence: The realm of things that exist.

Consciousness: The faculty that perceives the things that exist.

Identity: The specific set of attributes that each thing that exists possesses.

Primacy of existence: The fact that everything that exists is what it is and does what it does independent of anyone's conscious action.

If every child were taught this from their earliest years, instead of the opposite, as they are taught now, The world would be a far, far better place.

Click to expand...

Interesting! What would be the opposite of your given definitions?

Of course you can't really mean every last child, but in that vein, do you see this overall lack as a shift away from western classicism in general? Or is ignorance and rejection of philology a sort of general cultural entropy? Perhaps the shift is itself a form of primacy ?

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

Click to expand...

person < persona. latin, of etruscan origin. acting terminology referring to the masks worn by actors on the dramatic stage, but also refers to the characters played by said actors. from the meaning of role that one plays, it comes to be used to refer to the social roles that one plays in the bigger stage of life. the character that you present in the face of others, in the duties and responsibilities and expectations of life, is your person.

fortuitously, more recent postructuralist accounts of gender and sexuality likewise emphasise the agency of people in expressing who they are. often they talk about the performance of being a man, a woman, etc. all the world's a stage and we put on a show with our persona for our audience and ourselves, to create ourselves as spectacle.

implicitly and explicitly, to me at least, this implies a greater relational, social dimension of this word compared to our word individual. a person is a person insofar as she is a person in relation to other persons. a person is a part of a people. a person does not have the same semantic range as individual, which de-emphasises such relationality.

an impersonal description of an event (it is raining) consciously tries to detach relationality and seek objectivity. it is a point of view from nowhere, from the perspective of no mask.

i leave aside the development of persona later in philosophy and especially christian philosophy, where it was taken up and even comes to be used, in quite a different sense from the 'mask' etymology, as describing the three hypostases of the trinity, mainly because i don't know much about it. in fact you could easily write a phd thesis on the issue of persona throughout western history, and it wouldn't go to waste, because it's so integral to our legal, philosophical and social systems.

Once again you impress me, sarxweh (not that you need my approval - if you can believe that), but I think your alignment of philosophy with what is in this context a kind of minimal representation is unfair (if you can take philology as a kind of minimal expression of history). I must admit though, that it is a challenge to answer why. I think part of it has to do with the fact that as Derrida once put it (I'm paraphrasing) "I wish philosophy were more personal", that is, philosophy, true philosophy is not just about presenting a certain point of view or opinion, but about attempting to roast or add salt to the sacrifice we all must be or make, as human beings. There is no mistaking that we all must be or make a sacrifice and it is I think that that philosophers wrestle with, not whether they are posthumously represented as having stood for a gargantuan record of humanity's past. In this there is a kind of forgiveness that can be intuited by reference to the cross of Jesus Christ, that if you have been truly true to yourself and your philosophy, you are at least assured of a place in history that is more relevant than history for historicity's sake (if historicity is even a word, as philosophers have suggested). I think history for historicity's sake is spirit crushing and if all we did was pursue philology that is what we would have. Some might argue that is all we need, but the very invocation of the concept of "need" in the absence of anything else, is ultimately self-defeatist.

words like "is" make all the difference for me personally. I carry a lot of assumptions into a conversation, asking what something is? Or what something is like? Or how is it? Let alone when I begin telling someone what something is, and begin assuming the role of a legitimate conduit.

Unintentionally, we all presuppose much in our use of language, and I usually find that the more words I have carefully defined or attempted to understand, the more 'thinking pieces' I have when attempting to figure out and put a concept together for myself.

A cold philology may glaze over my senses and insulate me from some broader perspective available. Which is why philology to me is a sort of mental humility that knows where it is strong and where it is weak; where to inform and where to ask. A warm philology would be one in which my senses were firing and excitable, though humbly since in philology, we are students - nay, even real lovers of knowledge!

But it also is the most practical form of thinking philosophically. If we simply take a term for something as granted without realizing the many nuances inherent in it, may I be so bold as to say, we are a bit like a building without windows or doors; you may call it a structure, but it is survivable, not livable. And when friends come over, it isn't very comfortable. To counter this, many of us perhaps begin buying furniture; adding new elements with bright colors, or jazzy themes for the drapes and the lighting. But over time, the elements erode all of our unprotected padding over time. What we needed to begin with was to finish out the structure.

I say, philology is philosophy ... and all that that implies

sarxweh said:

words like "is" make all the difference for me personally. I carry a lot of assumptions into a conversation, asking what something is? Or what something is like? Or how is it? Let alone when I begin telling someone what something is, and begin assuming the role of a legitimate conduit.

Unintentionally, we all presuppose much in our use of language, and I usually find that the more words I have carefully defined or attempted to understand, the more 'thinking pieces' I have when attempting to figure out and put a concept together for myself.

A cold philology may glaze over my senses and insulate me from some broader perspective available. Which is why philology to me is a sort of mental humility that knows where it is strong and where it is weak; where to inform and where to ask. A warm philology would be one in which my senses were firing and excitable, though humbly since in philology, we are students - nay, even real lovers of knowledge!

But it also is the most practical form of thinking philosophically. If we simply take a term for something as granted without realizing the many nuances inherent in it, may I be so bold as to say, we are a bit like a building without windows or doors; you may call it a structure, but it is survivable, not livable. And when friends come over, it isn't very comfortable. To counter this, many of us perhaps begin buying furniture; adding new elements with bright colors, or jazzy themes for the drapes and the lighting. But over time, the elements erode all of our unprotected padding over time. What we needed to begin with was to finish out the structure.

I say, philology is philosophy ... and all that that implies

Click to expand...

This is the very reason that God wishes us to be an "understanding" person. Without tedious definitions set for giving a simple statement, many different interpretations could be made on that simple statement. But there is only one of them truly intended by the author. It is not that easy to catch that particular one precisely. If we can do that, we are 'understanding'. If we understand, then any conversation could become much mush easier and more efficient (without the need of going through all kind of definitions).

That is why sometimes, it is real hard to talk to someone who is very knowledgeable, but has little understanding. This is very commonly seen in academia. And this is also why most of the "meetings" are simply waste of time.

tautology is tautology

Colter said:

Man is barely real, not really that far removed from our animal ancestors. Our words and thoughts are grunts and snorts to the high celestial beings of the spirit world.

Click to expand...

I do not really buy into the idea we are descended from animals as I am young earth age creationist. My most distal ancestor in my family tree was actually handmade by God.

Given that one of the first tasks of this man was to name the animals, it suggests not only was this man Adam physically made, but given abilities such as language from the moment of creation. So, I suspect his language was more than grunts and snorts. I will grant you that probably heavenly beings have a wider language ability than humans on this earth.

>>>>>>>>

sarxweh said:

Regarding the nature of truth and logic, we often overlook the meaning and nature of words themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see that as well.

I once heard a young woman (girl?) at the candy counter in a movie theater ask for "Reese's Pieces". The attendant said, "We only have Reese Peanut Butter Cups" (which was true). The girl looked frustrated and said, "That's what I call them!"

I said nothing, attempting to mind my own business. But I've seen that same sort of thing in many conversations, ranging from morals to car repair. If one needs a screwdriver, they should not ask for a torque wrench. Further, does one need a Philips or a slot type? Torx driver, perhaps? Depending on the use, a big one or a little one?

Ill or undefined terms are frustrated. Sort of like asking, "Is a cow brown?" The truth is, some are and some aren't. Which cow?

sarxweh said:

What words in specific have defined your philosophical slant and how would (or could) the world benefit from the terms you have come to use in your grasp of reality?

Click to expand...

Not sure what has defined my philosophical slant - other than Christianity in general. So I would suppose that 'Christianity' and 'science' are the two words that influence me most. What is frustrating is that many people 'know' so much about both concepts that simply isn't true. (Thanks, Mr. President.)

sarxweh said:

Do you see your definitions as a) your own, b) borrowed, or c) do not think often or much of them?

Click to expand...

Hopefully, all the words I use are used in the accepted dictionary or 'accepted' sense, depending on the context. That is my intent, at least. It is also a source of frustration at times.

Allow me an old man's story. When I worked as a Customs Inspector, we used a 'jargon' phrase, "make an entry". The term 'entry' is used in importation of items to the United States in two ways: As a verb, it is the process of presenting merchandise and documentation regarding to the U. S. Government (usually in the form of me); and such examination as deemed needed (also me). As a noun, it is the collection of documents (bill of sale, shipping information, any licenses or permits needed and so forth) the importer must collect and present for examination.

It has nothing to do with descending a long flight of stairs in a flowing gown. Using it in the special sense without explanation usually resulted in a very strange look on the part of the importer - especially if this was a first (only) time event.

sarxweh said:

(Pereant qui ante nos !)

Click to expand...

Here we are in front of us? Sounds like one of my dreams, actually.

Sarxweh, I just looked up 'philology'. The study of linguistics and language in literature.

I don't see how that IS philosophy? Is my drive belt slipping?

poolerboy0077 said:

tautology is tautology

Click to expand...

And it is the fool who has the last word of course. You have cut me to the quick