The ontological error of Philosophy

[PeteJ]

Perhaps you could demonstrate how to explain, say, a rock without using verbs.

Perhaps you are agreeing with the argument being made?

You can't explain what things are, only how they behave.

One could almost label you an anti-realist.

I don't mean to be difficult but I'm unable to understand your point, How can anything be described without using verbs?

I'm quite happy to accept that most or even all 'things' are actually events. It's a common view. In Buddhism dhamma are defined as 'thing/events'.

[Belinda]

PeteJ, "I don't mean to be difficult but I'm unable to understand your point, How can anything be described without using verbs? "


You could try it Pete it's fun. Besides maps, dances, and pictures there is fun to be had with language. A noun may be turned into a verb and a verb may be turned into a noun.

[PeteJ]

PeteJ, "I don't mean to be difficult but I'm unable to understand your point, How can anything be described without using verbs? "


You could try it Pete it's fun. Besides maps, dances, and pictures there is fun to be had with language. A noun may be turned into a verb and a verb may be turned into a noun.

I notice that you give no examples of how easy it is.

[Belinda]

PeteJ, "I don't mean to be difficult but I'm unable to understand your point, How can anything be described without using verbs? "


You could try it Pete it's fun. Besides maps, dances, and pictures there is fun to be had with language. A noun may be turned into a verb and a verb may be turned into a noun.

I notice that you give no examples of how easy it is.

You don't need examples do you?

[surreptitious57]

Answer the following two questions without using verbs :

What is understanding ? What is philosophy ?

[ Too easy ] Understanding is comprehension and philosophy is wisdom
Can you answer the two questions without using nouns or adjectives ?

[Univalence]

[ Too easy ] Understanding is comprehension and philosophy is wisdom
Can you answer the two questions without using nouns or adjectives ?

You've stopped just short of seeing your error.

Understanding is comprehension and comprehension is understanding?

That sure seems circular to me...

[Age]

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

No.

To me, I recognise that you would have to be able to at least answer the question "What is X?" first.

Without first knowing "What X is" what use is there in knowing "What X does?"

"What is X?" could be said to be far more useful. If it is infinitely more useful is another discussion.

[Univalence]

To me, I recognise that you would have to be able to at least answer the question "What is X?" first.
Without first knowing "What X is" what use is there in knowing "What X does?"

OK.

Let X be "knowledge".

And then your argument becomes: Without first knowing "What knowledge is" what use is there in knowing "What knowledge does?"

If one neither knows what knowledge is; nor knows what knowledge does - one would be indifferent towards pursuing knowledge, surely?

And if one were to be convinced to pursue knowledge, I'd imagine it's far easier to tell them what knowledge does, than what knowledge is.

Knowledge empowers you to get what you want out of life. Do you want that?

[surreptitious57]

Knowledge can be an end in itself rather than a means toward an end
You can learn just for the sake of learning without an ulterior motive

[surreptitious57]

Understanding is comprehension and comprehension is understanding ?

That sure seems circular to me

That is because definitions are tautological as they describe what a word means
Non tautological definitions would be oxymorons and would not make any sense

Can you describe a word accurately without being tautological - no this is simply not possible
Every word must have a matching definition otherwise they cease to have any meaning at all

[Belinda]

Surreptitious wrote:

Every word must have a matching definition otherwise they cease to have any meaning at all

But meaning is imposed upon words by people. "The meaning of a word is its use" (Wittgenstein). If you were famous or influential you might use a word eccentrically and it would pass into common speech.

In those cases where a word can be defined it's not defined by an exact synonym but by the lexicon of the discipline within which the word is an item. In these cases the word and its arbitrary meaning have been introduced by a person or persons for a purpose . A obvious case of the latter is the nomenclature of descriptive botany.

For historical reasons the specialist lexicons of academic disciplines are most often characterised by words derived from Latin or Greek. An amusing exception to the usual etymology is the word 'quark' in quantum physics.

[Univalence]

Can you describe a word accurately without being tautological - no this is simply not possible

So then all language is circular? e.g language is a closed system? Imagine that.

Every word must have a matching definition otherwise they cease to have any meaning at all

Is this true? If all language is circular and words define other words, and all definitions are tautological, then where does 'meaning' come from in a closed system?

[surreptitious57]

All definitions have to be universally agreed upon otherwise communication is simply not possible
Language is a logical system so has rules that have to be followed so that it can function properly

[Univalence]

All definitions have to be universally agreed upon otherwise communication is simply not possible
Language is a logical system so has rules that have to be followed so that it can function properly

OK. You don't need others for that.

Agree with yourself what it means 'to know'.
Then discuss (with yourself again) whether the claim "I have knowledge" is true.
What method would you use to verify that claim, and what would entail sufficient evidence?
What method would you use falsify that claim, and what would entail sufficient evidence?

Aristotle argued for self-knowledge, but he never told us how to determine whether we know ourselves.

Trust-but-verify starts with self-skepticism, self-accountability and self-verification.

[Belinda]

Surreptitious wrote:

All definitions have to be universally agreed upon otherwise communication is simply not possible
Language is a logical system so has rules that have to be followed so that it can function properly

Meanings are agreed not by some sort of committee but by usage. Usage of language is socially contrived not usually by deliberations but by traditions, popular trends, power, influences and so forth.