95% of philosophy is just arguing over semantics Most questions

File: an-inconvenient-truth.jpg (143KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 670x377px

>>9976978

>>9976978
Someone hasn't read their Kripke

>>9976978
So what's the proper definition for ship of theseus?

>I don't have the patience or intelligence to understand and ponder works of philosophy
>Therefore it is dumb and I am above it

>>9976978
OP prepare for backlash from people wasting their lives majoring in philosophy

>>9976978
At least, because if all this fucking about we have found out that our languages only symbolize social concepts and nothing beyond.

>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>9976978
This is basically true with respect to analytic philosophy. Continental, existential and a lot of ancient philosophy, which all have a great deal more to do with situated human beings figuring out how to live their lives, obviously is not reducible to semantical games predicated on faulty or unclear definitions. That latter shit comprises considerably more than 5% of philosophy, however.

your view is outdated by at least half a century, op. smarter people than you tried really hard to defend that view for a long time and failed.

>>9977296
shut up nerd wittgenstein ended philosophy and thats a fact

>>9977186
Hey, im only minoring in philosophy, faggot

>>9977199

The best philosophy threads were from a year ago before /his/ came out. /his/ is basically taken over by neo nazis now anyway, it might be good to accept philosophy refugees here, regardless of the actual specific rule.

here's some street philosophy for you nerds: don't major in philosophy LOL

>>9977312

LOL Good One !

>>9976978

I have a question about the philosophy of language: is it possible to construct a language where the definitions are utterly solid, will never change, and can be agreed upon by everyone? Basically giving every object and concept its ultimate, perfect, fitting name that leaves no room for doubt or ambiguous meanings

>>9977319
No. Language does not work like that. See Wittgenstein and basically every continental philosopher including and since Heidegger. In fact, see Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript".

>>9977319

this was basically the project of analytic philosophy in the first few decades of the 20th century and is largely agreed to be a failure. if you're interested though, read up on people like russell, frege, carnap, and early wittgenstein

File: stirnershig.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>9977098
There isn't one. That's the point. The answer to the question is 100% depended on the definition.

>>9977179
>I don't have the patience or intelligence to understand or respond to your post so I'll strawman it

>>9977296
Give a rebuttal then.
"Smarter people did x" is a pathetic response.

>>9977319
The closest thing is formal maths. There isn't really much doubt, but it is possible to phrase undefined or ill-defined things.

>>9977289
Only good response ITT

>>9976978
this is why STEM does not respect modern philosophy

>>9976978
I think you're completely missing the point
the argument over what the definitions *really are* and what they *should be* is integral to philosophy
if you pick a set of definitions then you have picked a philosophy

>>9977319
yes, it's called a programming language, but programming languages (at least in themselves, without say outputting strings) are ill-suited for anything that's not an action or a state of being

>>9977442
But why should definitions be anything?

In maths we say "given this definition we can deduce these things". The interesting part is what follows from the definitions. Why argue over a set of completly arbitrary definitions?

The best answer to the ship of theseus riddle is "you should specify what you mean by being the same ship" rather than "you should define being the same ship as *arbitrary definition*"

How are you ever going to demonstrate your definition is "better"?

>>9976978

daily reminder that ethics, a branch of philosophy, is going to be the Next Big Thing as more processes are automated (smart cars deciding who to save, etc.)

>>9977446
There aren't really any actual programming languages like this.
Non-functional programming languages (ie most of them) do not have non-changing definitions (unless you count the action as the definition). It is easy to write functions which are not defined or that we can't easily verify are defined.

>>9977460
>smart cars deciding who to save
Shit meme. You save the person not responsible for the crash. The fact that this was even considered an interesting question tells you all you need to know about people who study ethics.
Ethics will never be the next big thing outside of the domain of philosophy.
Data, AI, automation, etc are the real Next Big Things.

>>9977460
If you think government officials and engineers are going to consult academic ethicists for advice, you are wrong.

>>9977486
t. STEMsperg

>>9976978
>ship of theseus
What are the unclear definitions here? Ship of Theseus just shows that a man is not a state but rather a continuity of states - it is a definition made through appeal to reason. Not to be considered in isolation, rather as a tool for other discussions.
>chinese room
That's just a thought experiment, it is supposed to make you go "wait, black-box model of consciousness and language feels off, maybe we should switch to behaviouism or something".
>anything to do with determinism
This one - sure. The fact that different axioms don't influence the reality (both describe it the same) helps pivoting to object-oriented philosophy and away from anthrocentrism.

>>9977452
You're assuming the goal of philosophy is to solve something. What if the goal of philosophy is transformation and liberation? The ship is to poke holes in how our conceptual ideas about things are NOT tied down to concrete physical realities, and this can even apply to ourselves. To really experience this is a liberating and confronting experience that can change how you approach other people and yourself. The fact that you want to "solve" the problem says a lot to me about why you don't appreciate most philosophy. That's cool, though, if it's not your cup of tea you don't have to drink it.

>>9976978
What do you mean by 'properly'?

>>9977531
You know why /phil/fags are despised and told to shut the fuck up IRL? Because of shit like this. Someone says they like Western cartoons and some faggot asks what's Western with a smug look on his face. Suck a dick.

>What is [insert thing]?
>2000 years later
>Nobody knows
>Philosophy

>>9977552
This is why we argue over semantics.

File: tumblr_okbclwu9A31rtynt1o1_540.jpg (205KB, 540x686px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 540x686px

>>9976978
>wants to "resolve" philosophy
It is a way of life, not an obstacle.

>>9977486
some companies are but most are asking public opinion...
>https://qz.com/1061476/germanys-new-regulations-on-self-driving-cars-means-autonomous-vehicles-wont-compare-human-lives/

>>9977566
>Dude... just argue about this shit for thousands of years with no conclusion... it's like a way of life, man... Like, what is the good life? Man... I don't know... it's the journey that matters...

>>9977575
I never said it is all you do, but it should inform the way you approach most things. Why don't you try discussing without strawmanning? It's a lot more rewarding that trolling.

>>9977474

i.e. if the car has to make a Trolley Problem -esque choice where one of >=two innocents has to die

would have thought that would have been obvious from context but i guess i have to spell it out for you autistic STEMlets

>>9977486

it's already happening capt. autism

>>9977561
Yeah, smug cocksuckers do.

>>9977575

That anon was right. Drop the incredulity, it won't be of any help to you.

>>9976978
Did you just read Wittgenstein for the first time or something (lol)?

File: ayyyeardddhag.jpg (45KB, 480x472px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x472px

>>9977486
that's literally how it has always worked my frend

>>9977585
It's for the purpose of resolving the ill-posed questions that people see as profound.

>>9977617
>ill-posed

I hope people punch you as a form of greeting.

>>9977617
Why do you want to resolve them?

>>9977627
To feel smart and superior. He's actually just an annoying pretentious snob.

>>9977603
they traditionally consult lawyers, statisticians, faith leaders, and economists. philosophers are almost entirely ignored unless they're also superstars like bertrand russell or john dewey or whatever.

i guarantee you that your local lawmaker does not care about what ethical theory is right or what to make of the current debates of metaethics. in fact your local lawmaker is probably not too familiar with any philosophers from the 1900s-onward except for rawls

>>9977627
I'm just going by what OP has said.

>>9977319
I don't think so because the concepts that words hold also have connotations and bias from the users. Two cultures will perceive a given word differently.

>>9977567
>public opinion
likely infinitely better than some useless sperg dick sucking dead useless spergs within their made-up world view. At least it'd be grounded in related and informed by those that it will affect.

>>9977552
What did you mean by properly and western?
Language is too shit for proper discourse and conveyance of specifics. Those two words in particularly absolutely need to be specifically defined if you really want to truly discuss anything.