I don't know, maybe your assumption that the low-hanging phil 101 fruit is done with is wrong.Should I just give up on this whole project? Now that the boring low-hanging phil 101 fruit is done with, right as we’re finally start to do some more substantial stuff... — Pfhorrest
"Push" and "pull" are inappropriate terms to use when describing utterances and questions. It makes it sound like thoughts are moved from one person to another. "Copy" is a more apt term that describes what it going on.The first and perhaps most obvious of these distinctions is that of statements versus questions. This distinction is about the direction that thoughts are being communicated between people. Roughly put, by statements I mean utterances that "push" a thought from the speaker to the listener, and by questions I mean utterances that "pull" a thought from the listener to the speaker. — Pfhorrest
I don't know, maybe your assumption that the low-hanging phil 101 fruit is done with is wrong. — Harry Hindu
I didn't take time to read the wall of text in your link, but you seem to think that using words only entails making sounds and scribbles. If that were the case, then what separates any sounds or scribble from words?
Any theory of language that doesn't take into account the fact that words are seen and heard (we use our senses to be aware of language use just as we use our senses to be aware of everything else in the environment), and that language-use requires that these scribbles and sounds be seen and heard, not just made, for language to occur. — Harry Hindu
"Push" and "pull" are inappropriate terms to use when describing utterances and questions. It makes it sound like thoughts are moved from one person to another. "Copy" is a more apt term that describes what it going on.
Think of scanning a hard copy of a document and then emailing it to your friend who then prints it out and now has their own hard copy. Not only do you still have the original thought, but you translated your original into a different type of media (paper and ink to electronic) and then your friend receives the electronic form and translates it back to paper and ink. We do the same thing when using language. Our thought is translated into another medium (paper and ink or sound waves) that are then received and translated back into the thought that those scribbles or sounds invoke in the reader/listener. — Harry Hindu
simple spelling or grammar errors, — Pfhorrest
my philosophy of language hinges on how "merely" describing something is itself still doing something by speaking — describing is an action
- and that speech can do many other things besides just describe,
I hold that the meaning of all speech can be found by paying attention to what it is that someone is trying to do by uttering that speech.
the limited domain of specifically descriptive statements:
Ethical discourse seems to me to be about deciding how to describe and (thereby) classify human behaviours, e.g. deciding whether "wrong" denotes this behaviour or that. — bongo fury
What exactly is being described of an action when one decides that "wrong" is an applicable word to it, though? — Pfhorrest
“exactly” is idiomatic here, the point is that “wrong” doesn’t bring to mind any specific descriptive indication, but rather a more general imperative prescriptive force. — Pfhorrest
I'm having a ridiculously shitty day so I'm just gonna be curt here. I feel like there's something you're really missing somehow. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.