The language of "philosophy"

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I cannot see how current words and definitions manufactured in the past can be expected to perform to the highest standards of groundbreaking philosophy/science - it is seemingly obvious that one must invent new terms in order to represent what one has discovered, that is if any philosopher throughout the course of history has actually discovered anything... lol

So it seems in fact, following this realization, like philosophy isn't so much a search for truth as a system of brainwashing/persuading people into believing the polemics of 'respected' individuals, polemics fashioned with linguistic tools already present, not discoveries or inventions. Sounds like politics to me, or even worse, religion...

It is not people who persuade, but reason. It is not old words and definitions that we use, but our own. We breath life into words when we speak them. We give new meaning to old concepts, or, better; we affirm an eternal meaning to universal concepts.

I see something in what you say, a difficulty with politics. Since all things human are forms of relationship, and all our forms, ideas, concepts, and even words are forms of relationship, then politics are general. Politics are the personality of any relationship. As shakespeare said: When two people ride a horse, some one has to sit in front. All relationships no matter how extensive are one at a time. If you were married to ten people it would be one at a time, and some one always wants to sit in front. What does it matter if the goal for each is the same?

Let me offer a tip. If you try to command you will wish you were commanded. When ever I worked with anyone in my trade, I would be happy with a common goal because those who make the plan are the most desirous to see it succeed. Since there is only a million methods for skinning a cat, and the man with the plan supplies the bulk of the labor; why not follow? So, I do not fear politics, but expect politics.

The difference between a good purpose, and a bad purpose, is that people are more single minded in doing evil. Bad people are already by nature united. Good people trying to organize for good always cast their pearls after the swine of politics. There is not purpose so grand, essential, or imperitive that some one won't try to ball up with politics. Before the last battle people begin choosing sides for the next war. So, I don't like politics, but see politics as inevitable as long as people will not sacrifice some of their personality to the goal they seek. In our world of politics, we do not vote for people. People you can know. We vote for personalities we do not know, and as long as we can offer them no control we will be the victims of our own elected monsters.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by molok69

I knew language was a big issue within philosophy, and even more between languages. But I was surprised when I discovered how big this issue may be.
An example:
If you translate the English word `random` to Norwegian, the word would be `tilfeldig` simple as that.

But if you translate the word `tilfeldig` to English the result is:
"accidental, casual, casually, fortuitous, haphazard, occasional, occasionally, random, randomly, sporadic"

No wonder I find it hard to express my thoughts the way i would like to!
Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Just some thoughts!

Just read an article by Derrida, think it was actually an address at a French philosophy symposium, where it seems there are those who look out for the language of philosophy, . . . especially as it concerns French philosophy it probably doesn't need to be said. Is it even possible to settle on philosophic meanings of technical terms of philosophy? Seems like a fine idea, but probably not possible or even desireable until we get all the loose ends nailed down--concepts such as 'being' or 'time'. Then we'll be good. BTW, 'random' in chemistry means uniform, as in uniform sample from a well-mixed batch of something.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Fairbanks

Just read an article by Derrida, think it was actually an address at a French philosophy symposium, where it seems there are those who look out for the language of philosophy, . . . especially as it concerns French philosophy it probably doesn't need to be said. Is it even possible to settle on philosophic meanings of technical terms of philosophy? Seems like a fine idea, but probably not possible or even desireable until we get all the loose ends nailed down--concepts such as 'being' or 'time'. Then we'll be good. BTW, 'random' in chemistry means uniform, as in uniform sample from a well-mixed batch of something.

It is people that give language its meaning, and not philosophers, exactly. In fact, comprehending meaning in words, and meaning in all other forms of relationship would about make any person the equal of a philosopher.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Modern philosophers, especially the likes of Wittgenstein and Russell and Derridas and Frege (and probably more) have focused on how much of philosophy boils down to vagaries of language. The whole idea of the unverifiable statement being devoid of any actual information content basically causes ALL of metaphysics to collapse into nothingness. And it explains why many philosophers (Kant being the most annoying of them) had to invent so many of their own words just for some degree of precision.

Derrida plays with language like no other. Georgio Agamben has some interesting if profane etymological insights. Heidegger is tops if you follow Greek terms in philosophy. For totally incoherent English writing by a native Englishman nobody beats Whitehead. Kant had no linguistic talent at all, but we must read him anyway.

[Henrik]

Originally Posted by molok69

Is there an extensive amount of information and knowledge lost in philosophy, because of the difference of languages are more extensive than we know?
Do we need a completely new language, the language of "philosophy" or something, to bring our exchanging of thoughts to a higher level, so we can profit from it in a more efficient and productive way?

Yeah! This is so frustrating. This issue pursues us, not only in philosophy, but in everything we do. If we could understand each other perfectly, we could even avoid conflicts and wars.
I'll call it a tragedy that we have so many different languages in the world.

When we exchange philosophical thoughts, we just share the foam on the beer. When we try to make our own words to express our thoughts, all the surrounding non-philosophers may think our talks are bullshit.