>he thinks he reads philosophy However

>These three investigators- Korzybski, Ogden and Richards agrees broadly on two besetting sins of language. One is identification of words with things. The other is misuse of abstract words.

>Odgen and Richards contribute a technical term, the "referent", by which they the object or situation in the real world to which the word or label refers.

>indeed the goal of semantics might be stated as find the referent.

>When people can agree on the thing which their words refer, minds meet. The communication line is cleared.

>labels and names for things can be classified, roughly, into three classes on an ascending scale.

>1, labels for common objects, such as "dog", "chair" or "pen". Here difficulty is at a minimum
>2, Labels for clusters of collections of things- "mankind",, "consumer goods", "germany", "white race". These are abstractions of a higher order, and confusion in their use is widespread. There is no entity "white Race" in the world outside of our heads, but only some millions of individuals with skin of an obvious or dubious whiteness.

>>9307582
>3, Labels for essences and qualities such as "the sublime," "freedom," "individualisim," "truth,". For such terms there is no discoverable referents in the outside world,, and by mistaking them for substantial entities somewhere at large in the environment, we create a fantastical wonderland. This zone is the especial domain of philosophy, politics and economics.

>we normally bed the hard question of finding referents and proceed learnedly to define the term by giving another dictionary abstraction, for example, defining "liberty" by "freedom" - "thus peopleing the universe with spurious entities, mistaking symbolic machinery for referents." We seldom come down to earth, but allow our language forms or symbolic machinery to fashion a demonolgy of absolutes and high-order abstractions, in which we come to believe as firmly as Calvin believed in the Devil.

>you doubt this? Let me ask you a question: Does communisim threaten the world? Unless you are conscious of the dangers lying in the use of abstract terms, you may take this question seriously. You may personify "communisim" as a real thing, advancing physically over the several continents, as a kind of beast or angel, depending on your politics.

>but you have identified the word with the thing, and furthermore you would be very hard put to it to find lower-order referents for the term. I have been searching for them for years. The question as it stands is without meaning.

Bump, does anyone actually have any thoughts?

>positivism

meditate so that you will learn to sotp thinking

>>9307933
Kek. So you did not understand one word.

>>9307966
I don't read garbage.

>>9307985
>I didn't read what you post
>here is my opinion
Good show.

>>9307986
I read what you post, not the garbage book. What you posted amounts to positivism.

>>9308018
Kek. So you did not understand one word.

>>9308038
No, I did.

he thinks he reads philosophy
However
he is reading the tyranny of words by Stuart Chase.

>>9308076
Explain your reasoning. Because, you know, if you had understood anything in those posts you would understand it's denouncing any and all Philosophy as they rely on the misuse of abstract words.

But yeah, you totally got it ;).

>>9308093
what is interesting about this wittgenstein wannabe

File: richard-rorty.jpg (19KB, 388x245px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 388x245px

>>9307582
>the object or situation in the real world to which the word or label refers
>mfw

>>9308093
He's misusing abstract words.
You are misusing abstract words.
'abstract' is an abstract word.
Why won't we stop communicating verbally or textually altogether and just fling literal shit at those we don't like, and hump those we do?
Fuck the PATRIARCHAL FUCKING WHITE MALE WORDS THE PROUD SOUTH-WESTERN AFRICAN KANG TRIBE COMMUNICATED ONLY WITH SETS OF TICKS, SCREAMS, AND KNEE-SLAPPINGS

>>9308111
Great argument.

So this is the same point Korzybski made? I read Hayakawa's book and this seems to be making the same critique

>>9307566
>he thinks he reads philosophy
I know that I don't read it

Though the Phenomenal is secondary to the Noumenal, most of our words pertaining to immaterial things are false and purposefully so.

>>9308123
Yes, using the same argument as the shitty book you posted, in a thread on said shitty book, is a great argument.
>>9308397
Fuck off.