Why do so many people mistake language for reality?

[JoeMorgue]

Okay obviously this is somewhat a response to the plethora of beyond even solipsist level navel gazing posts that have hit the board recently, but it did lead me to a serious train of thought because the "I can't describe it linguistically, ergo it doesn't exist" argument is used a lot as a seriously philosophical argument.

Basically there seems to be this idea amongst some people that everything can't use the language to describe perfectly can't exist, and everything they can use the language to describe has to exist.

For instance a while back I dismissed the classic "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" paradox as meaningless. It doesn't hold up to even a brief thought. It's just a semantic trap, nothing more. The concept of an "immovable object" is dependent on there not existing an "unstoppable force" and vice versa. It only rates thought because our language is capable of defining the concept of an unstoppable force and simultaneously defining the concept of an immovable object, something our reality can't actually do. There is no deep mystical puzzle that we can solve to understand the universe better.

I dismissed solipsism the same way. Stripped of all its philosophical baggage a solipsistic question basically boils down to "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't... problem solved. Again only the language makes it possible, by being capable of creating linguistic concepts like "beyond reality" or "outside reality" when by definition reality is already an all encompassing concept.

Basically a lot of "coffee shop" philosophers (and some more educated and experienced ones) are doing this. They take advantage of the fact that it's possible to create linguistically paradoxical statements and act like that gives them some kind of intellectual weight.

 

[Twiler]

There was one philosopher who suggested that all philosophical problems are in fact problems of language. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one.

I think that it is worth finding such problems, as it makes us aware of the limitations of our language.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think that it is worth finding such problems, as it makes us aware of the limitations of our language.

Oh to be sure a purely linguistic mind screw can be, if nothing else, interesting to mull over and discuss and can at times lead real intellectual growth. I'm not arguing that language and thought don't influence each other.

My issue is more with the arguments to seem to begin and end there, the as I call them "Obi-Wan Kenodi Speakers" that act as if the ability to make a self contradictory statement makes them the wise old man on the mountain.

I can use the English language to make the statement "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" but that doesn't change the fact that there is no intellectual value to that statement.

 

[MG1962]

JoeBentley - I agree with you. One of my biggest complaints about philosophical debates is the way the parameters are set so all you ultimately can do is agree with the person posing the question

 

[Trent Wray]

The answer is ineffable.

 

[Rasmus]

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

"Cl" - with compliments to Pterry.

 

[BNRT]

Basically there seems to be this idea amongst some people that everything can't use the language to describe perfectly can't exist, and everything they can use the language to describe has to exist.

I agree. That clearly doesn't hold, as we can describe things in language that clearly don't exist, like a 'round square' or 'the present king of France'. A question you could ask is what are we talking about when we say these things. 'The present king of France' clearly has meaning, but we can't point at anything in the world that corresponds to this.

Maybe Russel would be interesting to read, if you are interested in these kind of problems.

There was one philosopher who suggested that all philosophical problems are in fact problems of language. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one.

Do you perhaps mean Wittgenstein?

 

[Twiler]

I agree. That clearly doesn't hold, as we can describe things in language that clearly don't exist, like a 'round square' or 'the present king of France'. A question you could ask is what are we talking about when we say these things. 'The present king of France' clearly has meaning, but we can't point at anything in the world that corresponds to this.

Maybe Russel would be interesting to read, if you are interested in these kind of problems.



Do you perhaps mean Wittgenstein?

Yes, I think that might be who I'm thinking of.

 

[Dancing David]

The answer is ineffable.

and unprovably formless

 

[Milbrandt]

For instance a while back I dismissed the classic "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" paradox as meaningless.

It becomes an unstoppable object?
The force goes right through without moving the object?
They say "hi" and introduce themselves to each other?
See, that's the cool thing about language, you can just answer with something equally meaningless as the question.

But I know what you mean, sometimes people pose questions or make statements that don't seem to have any value at all because of some "clever" semantic paradox. Then, when you try to point that out, you're often accused of playing semantic games or missing the point yourself. When all you're trying to do is clear things up.
This usually happens to me when someone starts a discussion with a vague statement and I then ask them to define certain things, just to try and make sure what we're talking about. They often seem startled, probably because they themselves didn't try to define it in the first place.

Of course they could ask me to "Define define?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I know what you mean, sometimes people pose questions or make statements that don't seem to have any value at all because of some "clever" semantic paradox.

And this is it in a nutshell... the "clever" part.

Yes it is possible, easy in fact, to form a statement that causes a "Wait... what?" moment in someone's thought process. But that doesn't mean it holds any intellectual value.

There's an xkcd comic that has the line "Communicating badly and acting smug when you are not understood is not cleverness."

To this I would add "Forming a question in an intentionally confusing way and acting like you said something profound when no one can answer you is not wisdom."

 

[Trent Wray]

And this is it in a nutshell... the "clever" part.

Yes it is possible, easy in fact, to form a statement that causes a "Wait... what?" moment in someone's thought process. But that doesn't mean it holds any intellectual value.

There's an xkcd comic that has the line "Communicating badly and acting smug when you are not understood is not cleverness."

To this I would add "Forming a question in an intentionally confusing way and acting like you said something profound when no one can answer you is not wisdom."

Still .... it's part of how a person learns what *does* hold value and what doesn't .... through the ages, and also through one's own intellectual development. Solipsism, for example, might be mind blowing to a junior high student the first time they consider it .... but 25 years later it's meaningless when you're paying child support

 

[I Ratant]

There was one philosopher who suggested that all philosophical problems are in fact problems of language. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one.

I think that it is worth finding such problems, as it makes us aware of the limitations of our language.

.
I'll go along with that.
The number of problems invented by the misuse of words and meanings keeps people really busy for a long time, when the source of a problem may be as simple as a misuse of words.. like "immovable object" etc.
But folks love to dive into these semantic traps, and chase them all over, hoping to not step in something at the same time.

 

[I Ratant]

...
To this I would add "Forming a question in an intentionally confusing way and acting like you said something profound when no one can answer you is not wisdom."

.
It's termed "philosophy", and many people major wallow in it.

 

[Belgian thought]

Still .... it's part of how a person learns what *does* hold value and what doesn't .... through the ages, and also through one's own intellectual development. Solipsism, for example, might be mind blowing to a junior high student the first time they consider it .... but 25 years later it's meaningless when you're paying child support

Nice - but, what if you don't understand the concepts of child support?

 

[BNRT]

.
It's termed "philosophy", and many people major wallow in it.

I'm aware that you don't mean all philosophers, but I have to say this. As a philosophy major myself, I think the two most important questions are: "What do you mean exactly?" and: "Is that really the case?"

Of course, those questions apply 'outside' philosophy as well. Which is why philosophy is important, or at least useful. (NB. I did not say 'only philosophy' nor 'most important'.)

 

[fuelair]

Okay obviously this is somewhat a response to the plethora of beyond even solipsist level navel gazing posts that have hit the board recently, but it did lead me to a serious train of thought because the "I can't describe it linguistically, ergo it doesn't exist" argument is used a lot as a seriously philosophical argument.

Basically there seems to be this idea amongst some people that everything can't use the language to describe perfectly can't exist, and everything they can use the language to describe has to exist.

For instance a while back I dismissed the classic "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" paradox as meaningless. It doesn't hold up to even a brief thought. It's just a semantic trap, nothing more. The concept of an "immovable object" is dependent on there not existing an "unstoppable force" and vice versa. It only rates thought because our language is capable of defining the concept of an unstoppable force and simultaneously defining the concept of an immovable object, something our reality can't actually do. There is no deep mystical puzzle that we can solve to understand the universe better.

I dismissed solipsism the same way. Stripped of all its philosophical baggage a solipsistic question basically boils down to "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't... problem solved. Again only the language makes it possible, by being capable of creating linguistic concepts like "beyond reality" or "outside reality" when by definition reality is already an all encompassing concept.

Basically a lot of "coffee shop" philosophers (and some more educated and experienced ones) are doing this. They take advantage of the fact that it's possible to create linguistically paradoxical statements and act like that gives them some kind of intellectual weight.

[/I]YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have complained about that for some long time now and yet so many keep trying to pretend words are magic and must by default correctly describe things with perfect precision and accuracy even if those things/functions have no basis in reality.

 

[think analytically]

[/I]YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have complained about that for some long time now and yet so many keep trying to pretend words are magic and must by default correctly describe things with perfect precision and accuracy even if those things/functions have no basis in reality.

I don't know how many philosophers have been on this thread but perhaps Wittgenstein’s picture theory Language and the rest o his uberfamous work on language and philosophy comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Very interesting subject tho, good thread

 

[Ausmerican]

There can be value to answering that statement though.

I was asked that question a grand total of one time. I remembered something I read in a Batman comic years ago regarding that very question and how it got answered and promptly slapped the person asking it and said "Did you hear that? That was it."

Brought the house down.

As to the good old unstoppable/immovable; neither are described as invulnerable so one or both are destroyed would be the simple answer.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"The referent is not the thing." Alfred Korzybski