Should philosophy try to convey ideas with clarity of pure meaning?

Question

and let poetry be interpreted by the reader.
(see my last question)

Answer 1

I can understand why people would call for some kind of ultimate clarity of meaning and form of linguisitic expression. But such a goal is, I think, putting the cart before the horse.

Let's back away from the question a bit to illustrate the point. Is there a clarity of pure meaning in ANY endeavor? In pretty much any good scientific class I've had, half of the time is spent defining terms to discuss the other half. In many discussions in which I'm involved, periodic breaks must be called in order to define and discuss whatever terms have been recently introduced into the discussion. Even linguistics itself is not immune to this.

The closest we ever seem to come to a 'language' whose terms don't need discussion is math, and this is only because math has nothing to do with reality and therefore describes literally nothing. Except, perhaps, more math.

Linguistic and psychological study suggest that even if you could develop some kind of language of pure meaning, it wouldn't last long. New things are constantly discovered and described, to constantly muddy the waters. Each person brings their own life-experiences to each conversation and even each word, so arguably even much of the apparent agreement about meaning is illusory. And in these senses, perhaps it is much better that we ourselves are not led to believe that our way of describing and framing ideas is not more accurate than it is - the pretense of a perfect language may be more destructive than the absence of one.

Further, as a biologist I would argue that some misunderstandings are a good thing. Ideas are not always born easily, some are misbegotten chimeras of ill-fitting concepts that might never be merged if it were not for the mishmash of words we try to communicate with. Just as genetic errors can sometimes lead to dramatic new abilities, so too might errors of understanding lead at least to curiousity about otherwise untouched realms of thought.

So, in summary, no. The clarity you seek does not exist, and even if it did I'm not sure it would be so desirable a thing.

Answer 2

Pure meaning could only be pure of its self and the clarity for an ideas description is in proportion to the number of facts for its particular description. Mastering language, a Spirits expression, is an infinite life time commitment. It is certainly poetry for a reader who is able to interpret; to read and to interpret is the same thing, but the purpose far out weighs the elegance.

Your question about assembly language for humans is interesting.

Have look at the contents: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_terms.htm

Answer 3

Upon meeting a Zen master at a social event, a psychiatrist decided to ask him a question that had been on his mind. "Exactly how do you help people?" he inquired.

"I get them where they can't ask any more questions," the Master answered.

Answer 4

impossible

true philosophy
is poetry

Answer 5

One would think so.