W: Philosophy to Show the Fly Out of the Bottle

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wittgenstein [W] wrote in his Philosophical Investigation wrote;
The purpose of Philosophy is ‘to show the fly out of the fly bottle’ (Philosophical Investigations¶309)

What W implied above is all [if not most] philosophers are entrapped with all sort of philosophical issues due to their ignorance in their misuse abuse of language.
He thus proposed his Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
W believed his Philosophy of Ordinary Language can resolve all philosophical issues, i.e. leading the fly [confused philosophers] out of the bottle.

FDP, maybe Peter are ardent followers of W's approach re his Philosophy of Language.

But imo, W is wrong in asserting "The purpose of Philosophy is ‘to show the fly out of the fly bottle’ as if that is the main the whole or main purpose of philosophy.

I agree language as a tool of communication do has its cons in creating problems to resolve philosophical issues. As such, those who really are are lost in philosophy due to meanings need to be enlightened of their ignorance.
But Language is merely one tool of human life not the only or even the main tool.

My definition of philosophy is;
Philosophy is an inherent function to facilitate humans to survive and flourish optimally in a spiral of continuous improvement towards its inherent purpose.
Language is merely a tool of philosophy to achieve its purpose [subliminal] and there are many other tools of philosophy, i.e. intuition, knowledge, wisdom, rationality, critical thinking, morality, logic, etc.

To insist that language [as in Philosophy of Ordinary Language] is the most critical tool to resolve all philosophical issues is very immature.
This is why the once popular Philosophy of Ordinary Language was just a fad but FDP is still clinging on to it as the 'only way or the highway' in dealing with philosophical issues.
viewtopic.php?p=700305#p700305


Discuss??
Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Critiques of the Philosophy of Language

WORDS AND THINGS
A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology
by ERNEST GELLNER

The Strange Death of Ordinary Language Philosophy
https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tuschan ... s/strange/

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

But Language is merely one tool of human life not the only or even the main tool.

As a challenge similar to your challenges to realism, show us a language-independent use of philosophy, without using language in your demonstration.

There is no language independent philosophy. What facet of philosophy is more ubiquitous than language? What problem in philosophy is not related to language and please don't use language to demonstrate this?

(it seems to me all your arguments are language based and you consider others to have language based delusions or misunderstanding: for example, mind-independent reality is something you consider part of an incorrect assertion and which, via language, you try to show is a confused language based belief - and you want to help people out of that bottle)

Thank you

[Veritas Aequitas]

But Language is merely one tool of human life not the only or even the main tool.

As a challenge similar to your challenges to realism, show us a language-independent use of philosophy, without using language in your demonstration.

There is no language independent philosophy. What facet of philosophy is more ubiquitous than language? What problem in philosophy is not related to language and please don't use language to demonstrate this?

Thank you

Where did I claim Language is absolutely independent of philosophy?
I stated, language is not the only tool necessary to resolve all philosophical issues.
Common sense language is necessary but one must understand its limitation and only effective within a range of concepts.
Ordinary Language Philosophy insist language must be used in accordance to their way language should be used.
Are you familiar with the fad of Ordinary Language Philosophy?

[Iwannaplato]

Where did I claim Language is absolutely independent of philosophy?

Well, it would be more like philosophy independent of language. But note what you are NOT responding to in my post. Language is used in all of your philosophy and in your posts you center all arguments on the incorrect assertions (assertions being language) of those you disagree with.

I stated, language is not the only tool necessary to resolve all philosophical issues.

What tool is more necessary than language?

Re:

But Language is merely one tool of human life not the only or even the main tool.

You are claiming, while using language that it is not the main tool. What is the main tool?

Common sense language is necessary but one must understand its limitation and only effective within a range of concepts.
Ordinary Language Philosophy insist language must be used in accordance to their way language should be used.
Are you familiar with the fad of Ordinary Language Philosophy?

Sure. And I noticed that you to used ordinary language philosophy where later Wittgenstein seemed to support your positions, despite earlier saying it was a problem per se

ou cannot escape the point that what you claimed as 'facts' are conditioned upon a certain FSK, I guess, analytic, linguistic, ordinary language, etc. which are at best very flimsy as improvised from the condemned logical-positivist FSK.

IOW you consider ordinary language philosophy flimsy and based on a condemned philosophy. Yet, you used it when it (seemed to or did) back up your position.

But that's a tangent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where did I claim Language is absolutely independent of philosophy?

Well, it would be more like philosophy independent of language. But note what you are NOT responding to in my post. Language is used in all of your philosophy and in your posts you center all arguments on the incorrect assertions (assertions being language) of those you disagree with.

I stated, language is not the only tool necessary to resolve all philosophical issues.

What tool is more necessary than language?

Re:

But Language is merely one tool of human life not the only or even the main tool.

You are claiming, while using language that it is not the main tool. What is the main tool?

Principle of Charity.
In context, whenever I mentioned 'language' it is toward the dogmatic approach of the Ordinary Language Philosophy as the main tool to resolve philosophical issues.
Note: https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/

There are more significant tools in resolving philosophical issues, e.g. logic, wisdom, critical thinking, rationality with language as merely a communication tool.

Common sense language is necessary but one must understand its limitation and only effective within a range of concepts.
Ordinary Language Philosophy insist language must be used in accordance to their way language should be used.
Are you familiar with the fad of Ordinary Language Philosophy?

Sure. And I noticed that you to used ordinary language philosophy where later Wittgenstein seemed to support your positions, despite earlier saying it was a problem per se

ou cannot escape the point that what you claimed as 'facts' are conditioned upon a certain FSK, I guess, analytic, linguistic, ordinary language, etc. which are at best very flimsy as improvised from the condemned logical-positivist FSK.

IOW you consider ordinary language philosophy flimsy and based on a condemned philosophy. Yet, you used it when it (seemed to or did) back up your position.

But that's a tangent.

I don't subscribe to Ordinary Language Philosophy per se which is a dogmatic ideology.
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/

I use common sense ordinary language where it is optimal to use but not W version of Ordinary Language Philosophy.