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,
Hmm? Can't say I've heard that used about an entitry, but I have used myself the unrelated "if you can't even describe a logical argument for it, then that conclusion is by definition unsupported". Which is true. If you can't even tell me why I should take a claim seriously, then I don't and I won't. It's just elementary skepticism.
At any rate, language is more flexible than you seem to think. We even managed to find ways to describe stuff we can't even visualize with our minds (e.g., quantum mechanics), or abstract mathematical stuff, or abstract algorithms, etc. Between words being definable as needed if you need more, maths, etc, I do think that any concept that is coherent enough in someone's mind CAN be described one way or another.
Words are just names for ideas or concepts. There is no such things as having a clear idea of what an entity is, what it does, and how would you know that, yet running into some fundamental language limitation that prevents you from expressing it. Even if you don't have a name for its colour, then you can give its wavelength. If you don't have a word for its movement pattern or orbit, you can just describe it with maths. And that in turn lets you define the words you need.
I find that those that retreat behind "words aren't enough" really, don't have enough of a coherent idea of what they're trying to sell.
and everything they can use the language to describe has to exist.
Hmm? Did anyone actually claim that? Because from my experience even schizophrenics who see ghosts trying to enter through their nose, are still aware that other people's words can describe other stuff that doesn't really exist. If nothing else, some god they don't believe in.
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.
Depends on how it's used, I suppose. Humanity took a long time to really understand what mathematical infinity actually means. Figuring out or illustrating what happens when you divide infinity by infinity is actually pretty important for the meaning of the concept. Plus, if nothing else, it can also be used to illustrate exactly what you say there: both can't really exist.
I guess if anyone actually takes either as an existing entity just because it can be described, sure, then they're majorly delusional.
On the other hand, I've never heard anyone claim that. So, can you provide an example?
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.
While solipsism is stupid per se, it does illustrate some concepts that help understand how the brain works and what exactly do you perceive as reality.
As a trivial example, someone can perceive entities existing only in their brain. E.g., in a hallucination. What would reality without a physical reality behind it be? Well, what would a floating pink elephant be without an actual physical floating pink elephant behind it? It can be very real in severe alcohol withdrawal.
This is even more trivial for false or distorted memories. Something can be very real in your mental past reality, although it never existed in the real reality.
Conversely, at any given moment there are things around you that you don't really "see", although they're there. And no amount of effort or hypnosis or whatever will remember them (although it could create false memories instead) because really they were discarded very early in the processing chain.
There are a lot of things about one's perception of the world that most people imagine to know, but actually are grossly wrong. Distinguishing between the actual reality and what our brain sees around, is actually more important than you seem to think.
Granted, though, solipsism is probably not the most productive way to go about it.
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.
Again, I'm not aware of anyone who actually takes entitites for real just because they can describe it. Please do provide an example.
They might however illustrate the edge cases or some important concepts.
And if you don't want to explore such concepts, fine, go do something else instead. But it seems silly to basically rant against anyone having more intellectual curiosity than that.
