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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

i agree.

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.

However that is impossible for individual minds. As the word "tank" has different meanings to a military officer, a fish farmer, a plumber and a scuba diver. — Benj96

That is exactly the problem . When it comes to philosophy it is dealt by philosophers . Philosophers never had a commonality in anything. My intention is not prevent a difference in opinion or criticism , it would be destructive. I am thinking about a unified primary meaning which is accepted by all living prominent academic philosophers so that there is a structure and it is easier for researchers. It doesn't mean one have to avoid hermeneutics. Hermeneutics should be based secondary . This should be well established so that there are no mixing up of concept only the proper interpretation of the particular philosopher is taken and researched and theorized. For example , consider Hegel , he is considered as a concrete realist and an absolute idealist which are contrasting views or how certain philosophers read Kant caused two major areas analytic and continental tradition which are absolutely different in its nature. So it is necessary to have a historical interpretation of philosophy considering each philosophers background , period and how their philosophy developed as the primary interpretations and primary interpreters should work only on the primary works and should not mix the secondary works in the first.

I don't want the elimination of hermeneutics . Hermeneutics should be like the part of an organic whole which is the concept.

Philosophy as a academic disciplines should gain prominence for that we need to make it accessible to everyone. For that a unified language is necessary so that there won't be confusion. Hermeneutics should connected to the key concepts so that the authenticity won't be compromised

Isn't it necessary for the development of philosophy.

No unified definition of metaphysics is not possible. But unified meaning of key concept are possible.

Please refer earlier answers I am answering some of your questions there. You can't attribute a single function or purpose for philosophy .

Yes that is exactly my point. If we mistook one concept then the whole philosophy disposition will be in jeopardy.

No actually it's quite the opposite. Having a unified language doesn't limit philosophy rather it will help in its extension. Philosophy is popularly done in English nowadays . Translation of every work is done and research are done after it. By unification I mean the unification of meaning of core concepts. It will make it easier to propagate and in future research. Thing is ,conceptually if you think of it there are languages which uses left and right and languages which used North South East and west instead of it. If you think of something in that manner of thought things get complicated and two conceptual frame work arises causing different conceptual lines.

I think there are a lot of misunderstandings in this. Consciousness is expressed differently by different philosophers. Simply consciousness can be attributed to awareness. (Not going into the depth or any philosophical concept). Awareness is there for almost all living beings. But things get complicated when the description of consciousness changes. Like that of phenomenology. Different between the ontic and ontological subjects play a great part in it. Self is another complicated notion and these are not one and the same things.

Actually all of us are in our own cage. We are just unaware of it that's all.

Justified true belief? — Banno

It is subjective experience itself. Think of it , it is a belief and it is justified. It is as simple as that. It is one part of it.

Whatever "it" is. Our knowledge is not limited to subjective experience. For example, that you answered my post demonstrates that you know you are a participant in a social organisation that spans the globe... — Banno

That is an argumentum ad absurdum. Everything is based on the subjective experience. You don't know anything out of your subjective experience. Even every concept you know is bound to your own subjective experience. I answered your post because it is in field of experience. And i am subjectively experience this activity.

Actually that is where the question of illusion arises.
We will never know if it real or certain. Like that is advaita Vedanta where there is an epistemic world and real world. The epistemic world is not considered real and their is a world of illusions.

I think you mistook my statement. I was talking about subjective experiences not sense experience. Those are different things and subjective experience has a broad meaning when it comes to philosophy.

No , cogito ergo sum, clearly distinguish mind and body
It is idealistic. Mine is subjective experience in any form regardless of any construct or boundaries.

Ok is there a reason why you disagree.

so we know our subjective experiences for sure, and hence there is something that we know for sure, and so it is not true that we cannot know about anything for sure. — Banno

I like the way you put it. But the problem here is knowing and experiencing. You have to explain what exactly you meant by know to have a good definition. Subjective experience is there we know it. But isn't really experiencing rather than knowing, even the knowledge is an experience don't you think?

We cannot know about anything for sure. Definitely not 100%. Only thing we can be sure of is the subjective experience we have. We are experiencing it no matter what be it in reality or dream, physical or real and illusion or real.

I don't think existential could liberate anyone. Existentialism is not actually a philosophical system . It doesn't have a unified structure. Only common concept is the supremacy of existence over essence and the existential crisis. There can't be a perfect definition for existentialism.

It is called existential experience. You know you exist ?right? It is simply the experience of your existence. You are experiencing it you can't deny it. It is simply that experience. If you are not aware of it then I suppose you might have to wait for an existential crisis to happen. Then you will be aware of your existence.

So does that mean humans are like bacteria for a higher being.

Actually it is a practical methodology. I don't think it is better I think it is worth studying it. Maybe even scientifically. If we could improve our mental capacity who knows what we could achieve in the future.

Abhorrent is a strong word don't you think .

Actually I was trying to explain that AI couldn't experience higher state of mind. Lot of people cannot understand that and some doesn't believe in that. Somewhat closer effect is a psychedelic experience that's why I used that.

Actually if we think of non of this is certain. Only thing we are certain about is our existential experience and it is purely subjective. Be it science or any other kind of knowledge we can never be certain.

It is not only about judgement. AI couldn't reach higher stated of mind. Or psychedelic state of mind. It can never be achieved. Humans regardless it is scientifically proven or not , experience a higher state of mind or atleast a state of bliss. It won't be acquired by AI. I think humans could focus on advancing human beings rather than advancing AI it is a big mistake. By making AI and robots we are limiting ourself. Making us weak and makes it hard for us to evolve into better beings. AI will never experience an existential crisis those things are only experienced by humans .

Consciousness and mind are really problematic. Different philosophers have different approach towards both. You could refer philosophy of mind if you are interested in it. Jaegwon kim wrote it if I am not wrong. It explains about these aspects in detail. You could check that if you are interested.

This is a very interesting discussion. Philosophy is the starting point of most of the fields . Theology is not exactly part of philosophy. This has several dimension if you think about it. When it comes to Indian philosophy religion and philosophy go hand in hand. Here is there is no clear cut distinction between philosophy and religion. But that doesn't mean there aren't any atheistic school of thought. There was charvaka which is a materialistic school . Buddhism also is atheistic to some extend. So it is intertwined there. But when it comes to the Western philosophy. Greeks established a system and contributed to philosophy . Philosophy established others but even then gods where prevalent. Math was given importance by Pythagoras . Things changed in the scholastic period philosophy become the hand maiden of religion. Things changed in the modern era philosophy is compared to science. Theism and atheism doesn't matter. As philosopher we are free to take oru position about anything. For me we cannot know about God or prove it. That doesn't mean there is no Possibility of god. So i choose to be an agnostic and i believe that is the most convenient position a philosopher could hold. Mostly the extremes are a dark area.

Actually it is not that straight forward. Berkeley as you might know is an empiricist and he is against rationalist ideal. Therefore he clearly want to establish perception and sensation as the method of knowing. He also wanted to establish God. So he goes on to say that when we asleep we are perceived by God.But that argument is followed by the question who perceives the God. Clearly that is contradiction. Consciousness is clearly established by Kant if I am not wrong. Contrary to popular belief mind and consciousness are two different things. Berkley for sure is an idealist and there is an importance for mind but that doesn't mean he talked about human consciousness.

Then who is watching you when you are asleep. Does that mean you don't exist when you are asleep.