How many arguments turn out to be about the meanings of words?
2007-04-25 03:48:47 · 9 answers · asked by Jos M 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
There are 4 wok, you cannot separate them. It's all one system and a very good one too. Beautiful theory.
I like the perceptive turn as the gear, the emotion as the driver, the reason is the passenger, and language is the yellow cab....LOL
2007-04-25 03:59:58 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite a few, but by no means all.
Wittgenstien (pah!) thought that, or held that, there were no philosophical problems : just "puzzles". Popper (yay!) completely disagreed with him. This is the origin of the "poker" incident, when Wittgenstein waved (or didn't wave depending on who you believe) a poker at Popper shouting at him to give an example of a moral law. Popper replied (or didn't) that "not to wave pokers at visiting professors" was an example and Wittgenstein stormed (or didn't) out.
For me I can appreciate that there are many many problems that stem from a lack of clarity of language and inadequate analysis. This resembles the kind of "philosophy" you get on calendars or in bar-rooms: they almost deliberately use confusing language to try and pretend they have a deep problem. These can be cleared up by being a bit more rigorous in stating the problem.
There are real philosophical problems though. I think we can turn these into "linguistic puzzles" IF we agree with Wittgenstein as to the answers to the fundamental problems of philosophy.
I am a realist and deny that the "reality" that I percieve is just a product of my language. I don't think I know everything (or that Wittgenstein knew everything) such that the only reason I don't have the answer to hand is that I am confusing myself with language.
2007-04-25 05:01:11 · answer #2 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes there are instances where our use of language does interfere but to say that all philosophical questions are nothing more than issues of semiotics is absurd. Philosophy is an ability that allows us to challenge our knowledge. I feel that some people are missing the point of philosophy. The point is not to "correctly" answer the question but to learn from the process. Ken stated that all discussions about God are basically semiotic. But even if there was a universal definition of God and we all recognized it and used it the proper way when we spoke, would there not still be questions of it's existence? Semiotics can be a very useful tool but I implore you not to let it blind you of the profoundnesses of philosophy. But even now I see that my argument could be construed as a semiotic issue. Maybe we simply have different understandings of philosophy. But as Socrates taught: philosophy is the examination of your life, and "the unexamined life is not worth living:" THAT is certainly not an issues of semiotics.
2007-04-25 05:07:28 · answer #3 · answered by kody s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ALL.
Agreements are what delves into the meanings of answers to questions put forth with the intent of learning.
2007-04-25 04:47:51 · answer #4 · answered by Izen G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Literature: Knowledge of literature helps to inspire creation of literature. Science: Knowledge of science helps to adapt the world we live in to a world we imagine.
2016-05-18 02:59:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's at the root of most or all conflicts. Even (or especially) discussions about God are semantic.
2007-04-25 03:58:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
more about misunderstand, with some of it being about the meaning of words and some about attitude and actions
2007-04-25 04:13:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Semantics...ALL
All arguments are basically semiotic.
http://adriennezurub.livejournal.com
2007-04-25 04:01:19 · answer #8 · answered by ADRIENNE Z 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would anyone keep track of this? Good question though.
2007-04-25 04:24:45 · answer #9 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋