it might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss. — Manuel

Exactly my point causing , which is causing chaos in the field.

i agree.

But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms. It is as if you were to demand that all paintings be done in oils, and never watercolour. You would be ignored, but more seriously, you would miss some great art. — unenlightened

No actually that is not what i intended to express. I was simply saying that the oil paintings should be studied as oil paintings and water color paintings as water color paintings. The problem is sometimes in philosophy because of the lack of unified meanings, oil paintings are compared with water color painting and it is absurd.

it might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss. — Manuel

Exactly my point causing , which is causing chaos in the field. — Abhiram

So, take "truth" for example. The average person or textbook definition being that which is not false. Truth would be I am writing this reply on my computer and you are now reading it. Factual and absolute events. Of course one could say, seemingly humorously if not annoyingly, "what if I'm not reading this at all and I am dreaming" or something frustrating to that effect ie. solipsism. It's a valid avenue of thought and eventual discussion. Annoying as it may be. So how would one go about trying to "pin down" something as abstract and therefore open to interpretation as "truth"?

Perhaps one would start with "social truths" as in, the way a given society thinks, granted as dynamic as it can be. Slavery was once the social norm. Therefore, it was "right", in fact, a sign of success. Now, it is wrong and a sign of a depraved and psychotic individual. Stealing and lying is wrong because it damages the social fabric. This is a social truth. Or is it? How about something more concrete, such as a mathematical truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Who could disagree with that? It's essentially a scientific truth such as if flame touches your skin the cells in your skin will burn and die. These are absolute truths that perhaps could change (enter science fiction or some sort of futuristic mad science transformation surgery or something).

So there are ways to best begin to attempt to find common ground. Factuality, observation, root concepts based on what we know for a fact we all have in common, things such as sight, sound, smell, touch, sensation, the fact we have a body, the fact that pain is.. painful and largely displeasurable and is both consciously and unconsciously avoided such as a non-conscious reflex of instantly retracting one's limb from a scalding hot surface, or breathing, etc. Of course, every body is different. So. In a way these concepts already exist. But for some reason, at least it would seem, their usefulness in intellectual concepts of any advanced degree seem to be limited and fall short of adequate meaning or multi-faceted proposition.

How would you best attempt to start laying these "ground rules" or "constants", if I understand your desire correctly? It interests you, so you must have thought about it enough to at least throw a few things at the wall and see what sticks, no?

So how would one go about trying to "pin down" something as abstract and therefore open to interpretation as "truth"? — Outlander

I am not denying the importance of interpretations. Philosophical hermeneutics is a field of philosophy and no one is denying its importance. What i meant was there are intended meanings by philosophers and western philosophy has developed because of the criticism and critique of these intended meanings. It is kind of like a chain reaction . But it will be problematic [for example] if a secondary interpretation of Aristotle is compared to the primary interpretation of Plato . Then we need to pin down these concepts and have clear sense of what, why, when, how and where these concepts developed. I think that is proper way of doing philosophy.

Philosophy is much more than "an academic discipline" and areas of rigorous study like set theory, musical composition and molecular biology have "unified languages" which are not "accessible to everyone". Your reasoning, sir, is un-sound to say the least. Besides, elementary logic is the "unified language" of (Western) philosophy – try making yourself (i.e. aporias & arguments) understood without it.

Hermeneutics should [be] connected to the key concepts... — Abhiram

I agree; hermeneutics, however, is only a method and not itself a language.

... unified definition of metaphysics is not possible. — Abhiram

Why isn't 'the study of "the nature of" the study of nature' a "unified definition" for metaphysics?

I would say that the process we are involved in now itself represents the development and evolution of meaning, which is integral to philosophy. Meaning is not static.

Conceptualization is important when it comes to philosophy . For that knowing about the right meaning or the intended meaning of the concepts is absolutely necessary. For that reason alone there is a need for the unified meaning of concepts. It is not necessary in laymen terms but become necessary when it reach the status of an academic discipline . Philosophy is and always been an academic discipline and the trends during the different period has polluted philosophy with the ideologies and notions. Be it religion , Science or any trend that has been prominent at a particular period. when we learn about a concept we need to be aware of all these factors and how it shaped the idea .It is a linear way of thinking for me. It doesn't mean thinking is linear. Thinking is obviously non linear. But it should be based on the linear or connected to the linear. For that we need the right and unified meaning.

for example
multiple souls and universal soul
individual consciousness and cosmic consciousness
visita vedantic concept of atman and brahman

Why isn't 'the study of "the nature of" the study of nature' a "unified definition" for metaphysics? — 180 Proof

Because metaphysics is literally , beyond physics and no one has any doubt about that definition . It is simple accurate straight to the point , less abstract and easy to conceive . It for me is primary and every other interpretation could be there but initially based on it. So that when definition changes according to the philosopher. The philosophical revision wont be making errors in the conceptions. There are clear distinctions clarity and systematization without making it scientific or linguistic , not limiting it and allowing it to propagate freely . This would make philosophy a revolutionary field.

Even when we DO have a unified language we can't find universal agreement.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889798

We have a unified language here - basic symbolic logic - and entire books worth of agreed-upon usages of that unified language, and yet you still get people explicitly misusing it while being completely and entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that they're misusing it.

I'm not saying unified languages are not useful, they're just not a panacea. They can't help everybody.

unified meaning of concepts — Abhiram

You keep saying this like it is a thing. What you are talking about is an artificial language suitable for application within a definite and restricted conceptual space. Exactly the opposite of what philosophy aspires to, understanding of the nature of universals.

metaphysics is literally, beyond physics — Abhiram

You're quite mistaken, Abhiram. 'Metaphysics' literally is tà metà tà physikà  (transl. the books after the books on nature)^^

After the Physics ~Andronikos of Rhodes, not; "beyond physics" (woo-woo). :roll:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics ^^

That, I think, was the noble, but not particularly successul, idea behind Esperanto, although if you wanted to launch a philosophy journal in Esperanto, you should probably borrow my avatar ;-) — Wayfarer

Not only was it not successful, but I would wager that Esperanto was in fact detrimental to the development of a common (European) language. Around and before the time of Esperanto, there were multiple conlangs being developed, Volapük, Latino sine flexione, and others with some extent of success. Come Esperanto, and all those languages essentially die off in favour of it. One hundred years later and Esperanto has not managed to go mainstream. Not that it was Esperanto's creators fault, just a misfortune of history.

:lol:

I agree with your idea that language is a tool to communicate, and it can be unclear at times for philosophical discussions.  But we also have  Formal Logic which can aid in clarifying the obscure ideas, statements or propositions.

But at times, Formal Logic can also present ambiguous conclusions due to its limitations. Hence it is good to have both tools, and use them together when one is lacking in the clarification process.
This is especially the case with the classic symbolic logic.  It can sometimes mislead the folks or be abused for presenting illogical sophistry as truth.  That is the reason why there are so many different types of Logics available for us to use e.g. Modal Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Epistemic, Dynamic, Intentional, Institutional, Description Logic .... etc.

Another point that you must note is that, Logic is not an effective tool for those folks who are psychologically motivated to push their own ideas to other folks.  For them logical arguments and proofs would mean nothing for changing their biased views on certain ideas they wanted to push to other folks.  They won't accept logical truths as truths.  They will keep denying verified and proved truths as fallacies.

Reasonings and Logical proofs are only effective for those folks who are authentic and willing to accept truths as truths.

For your question do we need a unified language in Philosophy? I would say No. It won't make difference what language or formal logic you use. If some folks are psychologically biased on something or some ideas, then no logic, no reasoning and explanation can change his views or enable them the point. IE psychology overrides reasoning in philosophy in some cases.

Another point that you must note is that, Logic is not an effective tool for those folks who are psychologically motivated to push their own ideas to other folks.  For them logical arguments and proofs would mean nothing for changing their biased views on certain ideas they wanted to push to other folks.  They won't accept logical truths as truths.  They will keep denying verified and proved truths as fallacies.

Reasonings and Logical proofs are only effective for those folks who are authentic and willing to accept truths as truths. — Corvus

Fully agreed

Fully agreed — flannel jesus

:lol:

Fully agreed — flannel jesus

Good :nerd:

so how can you tell the difference between someone willing to accept truths and someone unwilling?

I mean, we're all wrong about some things, right? So "someone willing to accept truths" means someone who can describe to you the conditions for changing their mind, for accepting that they were wrong.

I have laid out the conditions for changing my mind - show me the pages from the textbooks. What conditions do you have that could demonstrate to you that you're wrong? What would convince you?

We know it's not concrete logical examples, Oxford university, Stanford university, or other people systematically disagreeing with you here in the forum. So what could it be?

If you can't be convinced you're wrong about this, I don't think you can be convinced you're wrong about anything.

The evidence that you are psychologically biased is based on the fact that, you don't even accept my proposition that we can agree to disagree, and end the discussion. Because obviously no matter what logic and explanations were offered to you, you cannot see it, or accept it. The only way for the closure would be we agree to disagree. That is a fair solution. But you refuse to accept it.

"no matter what" - can you really say that? You have the thing to convince me, your textbook, and you said you'd post pictures of it. You haven't done that, so until you do that, there's no way to say "no matter what".

I don't think agreeing to disagree makes sense here, because it's simple logic. It's not opinion. It's not even obscure knowledge. It's easily demonstrable. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. If we can't come to an agreement on this, then one of us is truly intellectually hopeless.

I think your insistence on agreeing to disagree is a pretty big sign that you know you're wrong. If I say 2+2=4, and you say 2+2=5, then of course you're going to propose to agree to disagree. I don't have any need to do that, because I can demonstrate the validity of my idea. Only the guy saying 2+2=5 is motivated to agree to disagree, because proof of hopeless for him.

I know you've looked in your books

I think it impossible to have a "unified" language where terms are fixed in meaning. Even if it were possible, I would be against it. Achieving fixed meaning with strict definitions seems obvious and simple but meaning is also created through context, connotations, intention and a litany of other factors. I don't know how language would function otherwise, and philosophers should be especially defiant. "What does it mean to be free?" or "What is freedom?" would be questions muted by a "unified" language that dictated the singular meaning of freedom.

It would reduce misunderstandings to give the term "freedom" a singular meaning, but few would or should accept a singular meaning. To discuss the meaning of "freedom" and other concepts is a core, important part of philosophy, and the development over time of its meaning is the reward earned by such debate.

A precise term should mean little more than that its truth conditions were fulfilled. If a shape is a "triangle" then that shape has the features of a triangle, it has three sides, three angles. Philosophical terms aren't like that, for something to be "beautiful", it must be beautiful, yet the truth conditions are personal and contextual. It's preferable to allow speakers to express their own ideas using the common word, trillions of nuances referred to with just one word, very efficient, there's no agreeable alternative.

In my view, commonness of misinterpretation in philosophy is due to the lack of context when exploring or referring to concepts. If I'm talking about "fairness" in the context of elections, one would be able to use the context of "elections" to gain a good sense of the type of "fairness" I was talking about. Same deal if I was talking about "beauty" in the context of a discussion about dog breeds. Philosophers do bullshit like "discuss the essence of beauty" and that's what makes interpreting their meaning accurately impossible. Without the context that language so heavily relies on, misinterpretations are unavoidable.

In a certain sense, perhaps.

But it's also part of being in this field. To try to contextualize (not mere) words, but concepts associated with the words.

I think it impossible to have a "unified" language where terms are fixed in meaning. — Judaka

Actually it isn't . If philosophers could systematically work to make a unified primary meaning it is not a difficult process and it is easily achievable. My view is not to diminish any concept or reducing it to single meaning. I was only trying to systematize philosophy. Every interpretation should be given importance. But there should be primary set of meanings. It is something like the paradigm shift proposed by Thomas Kuhn . It will be a lot easier when philosophy become an academic discipline.

Exactly the opposite of what philosophy aspires to, understanding of the nature of universals. — Pantagruel

You can understand anything it is an intellectual process. You have to express it with language. You need language to think. Therefore language is very important to philosophers. Language is the chief tool of philosophers. To understand the nature of universals you need language and when it comes to philosophers they understand a concept in different ways , sometimes there is a possibility that they misunderstood the concept causing future generation to continue making the mistake eventually ruining a whole lot of philosophy in the process.

You're quite mistaken, Abhiram. 'Metaphysics' literally is tà metà tà physikà  (transl. the books after the books on nature)^^ — 180 Proof

Actually it is the collection of books containing Aristotle's physics. By after physics , he meant that it is beyond the physical one or comes after the physical. See this is actually the reason why told we need unified meanings. Two similar words but because of the scope of the scope of philosophy . Concepts could become ambiguous pretty quickly.

For your question do we need a unified language in Philosophy? I would say No. It won't make difference what language or formal logic you use. If some folks are psychologically biased on something or some ideas, then no logic, no reasoning and explanation can change his views or enable them the point. IE psychology overrides reasoning in philosophy in some cases. — Corvus

Same thing happen in the case of science. Scientific views could be biased too. There is a whole lot of research going on in the field of philosophy of science about the biases of science. But it doesn't stop science does it.

By after physics , he meant that it is beyond the physical one or comes after the physical. — Abhiram

Wrong. Apparently you didn't read (or understand) the links I've provided ...

After the Physics ~Andronikos of Rhodes, not; "beyond physics" (woo-woo). :roll:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/metaphysics — 180 Proof

Aristotle (d. 4th century BCE) never used the title "metaphysics" which was designated centuries later (1st century BCE).by the editor of his surviving works Andronikos. Again: the books after the books on nature (re: Aristotle's Physika is his book on nature (from physis² in Greek)).

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/physis ²

At least one hundred years after Aristotle’s death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) titled those fourteen books “Ta meta ta physika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle’s Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle’s philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world.

:roll: Wrong again. Andronikos titled the collection Metaphysics 300 years after Aristotle's death, not "100 years".

Same thing happen in the case of science. Scientific views could be biased too. There is a whole lot of research going on in the field of philosophy of science about the biases of science. But it doesn't stop science does it. — Abhiram

:eyes: :smirk: