what separates an ontological issue from an issue of semantics?

whether youre pedantic or listening to the question in good faith

nothing

>>9931375
The words we use are reflections of real sense content in our brains. Avoiding 'language games' only requires investigating that content, in other words to achieve an understanding within the discourse of what is denoted by the words you're using.

The reason why this is possible is because meaning in language is conveyed not only by single words, but also by larger utterances, and is therefore infinitely generative.

t. linguist

heidegger writes about this topic in being and time

basically, what is the meaning of 'existence'? what do we mea when we say 'x' exists?

you could start there

I would just say on face value one is a question about the meaning of words and the other is a question about the nature of reality. but it's far more complicated than that because the distinction takes as assumption that we understand the discintion between words and the world

>>9931375
The ontological argument assumes existence can be property of something, so it makes a metaphysical claim. Kant thought that existence cannot be considered a property of a thing and rejected the aragument.

>>9931396
Came here to post this

N O U M E N A

O

U

M

E

N

A

>>9931375
There is no difference. "Under what conditions is something an x" has the same answer as "under what conditions is it correct to call something "an x".

>>9932037
You cannot strip language off of meaning, you cannot separate form from content, you have no non-linguistic perspective from which to investigate language. You're making the most infantile mistake a linguist could make. Read Wittgenstein and Quine.

>>9931375
>>9931396
>>9933934

>>/x/

>>9933952
you idiot, it's obvious he's read Wittgenstein and responded to his challenges

>>9933952
this >>9935641
who do you think i was quoting when i said 'language game'

you absolutely can strip language off of meaning, it's called the 'arbitrariness of the sign'. Case in point: there is non-linguistic meaning.

Read Saussure