Philosophy is playing with words, words that humans have created

Changes in nature being sustainable is another question though, see the Permian extinction.

Influence and changed our lives by making us do stupid shit like circumcising women, putting our hands together, getting on our knees and talking to the air. Yea, I agree.

Want to take a wild guess what kind of a man has never lost an argument?
Create a model using human created words of such a man, if you know how to.

oh the irony

The one who never became involved?

>abstract thought is verbal
kys your are self

Creating more of arranging words is something what religion has done and made humans vibrate the air with their talking.

Something actually influencal religion has done, not really, do you think?

hah, like what you are doing, just, shooting out meaningless words. Let's not become one of those men that spend their lives wondering what the word "I" represents, something we have given meaning to.

people who want to take a break from making wheels or reinventing them in their cave, and join the rest of the human race, philosophy is important.

Political Philosophy, Ethics, Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology
these are important concepts to be explored if civilization and society is expected to grow and evolve and change.

Without philosophy I don't think the sciences would be as uniform and have certain standards in experimentation and measurement.

checked

>shooting out meaningless words
nope

>what the word "I" represents
philosophy is not semantics.

Philosophy's only achievement is birthing the scientific method.
It's useless drivel since then.

Ever been to a philosophy class that has not only been about arranging words and vibrating air?

How is scientific method a product of philosophy exactly?

Like, how has philosophy taken part of creating the laws of fundamental forces of nature for example. We observe, we model it, no philosophy needed, just on our way there.

>arranging words and vibrating air?
you could describe any discussion with that

scientists got together decided they need to have a method for conducting experiments.

they got together an immediately decided that establishing a scientific method wasn't philosophical but practical, and would get puzzled if some brought up concepts like pragmatism, and utility.

it is noted that after the denial phase generally anger sets in. And that's when they got super pissed at people who said that they were scientists doing philosophy and had no business in there since they were pure empiricists.

Eventually the discussion evolved all the way to a thread OP made about the usefulness of philosophy.

Like all debates where no one side is really willing to listen to stupid shit that doesn't matter anyway, it just devolves in to different types of smeared shit and farts, that only appear to look like posting in an thread on a anonymous internet forum

Just wait till you get to algebra class and realize all numbers are just variables that can represent anything anytime and even change context within the same problem and that you can literally just fucking make shit up and say it is correct.

>all math is lies

Wow wait! Math is very useful, you can use it as a tool to build houses, computers etc.. it's not all useless, just most of it.

Engineers do that, not some hypothetical retarded irrational number problem written on the chalkboard ;)

You are close to the opening of the Tractatus: "The world is everything that is the case", and that all language is a representation of objects that exist in the world. The most common view is that language can only represent an exogenous truth or Platonic form outside language.

You need to read late Wittgenstein: The Blue and Brown books, Philosophical Investigations, and On Certainty. In his late work he argues that truth is found within language itself, language is truth and not a representation.

Plato came close with Parmenides, but besides Wittgenstein, I can think of no philosopher that has written two works, devised two epic philosophical systems, that contradict each other so acutely. He was a genius.

>Why are there schools and people that take word game seriously?
because they are unintelligent

Thank you for the recommendation mate!

But that is.. true, we must have enough words to describe all models that are one with the reality, like the library of babel, just need to fetch it.

Hey are you an engineer?

Philosophy is the practice of artfully justifying one's priors.

Well, OP.

Consider The Morning Star and The Evening Star.

>Mathematics is playing with symbols, symbols that humans have created.

We have to spend our lives doing something.. even if it's completely useless, makes life worth living.

>philosophizing about the lack of relevance of philosophy

Exactly, saying how meaningless this is. The irony.

We must stop this circle of pure meaningless.

finely tuned bait user, a solid 8/10

It's also true, words are a human creation, and all philosophy does is arrange them different ways.

So you can say whatever stupid thing you say and nobody will question or of you call it an axiom?

Ah, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty soliliquous development in the life and times of this incrementational existance. Dissolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread amongst those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevitariably leads one to assert a number of logical "fallacies," the likes of which include the impossibility of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the ideology in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the present day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the concerns with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a statute which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comedic appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious mind such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution thusly would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a claim, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.

Of course, it's even more ironic when you consider that considering the pointlessness of philosophy is the only way to do so, but doing so is philosophizing it.
It's impossible to escape the realm philosophy on this subject.

...

Veeky Forums here

I'm triggered but I'm also too lazy to call you a filthy positivist

Just know that "playing with words, words that humans have created" is basically just a description of language

Those words have meaning to human beings, who can take that meaning and form it into the memetic polyalloy we call "thought"

Yea you are right, they do have meanings, they model the nature, we have named things, as you know.

But that's all that philosophy is, arranging words that we have created. You can't create new information with that.

And because of that, we can even create computers to create poetry, stories, movie plots, even music, because that's all that it is.

It is, then let's stop philosophing all together, because it's useless, and focus on something more important, like achieving world peace or so.

>and that all language is a representation of objects that exist in the world
m8 I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong, and that in the tractatus language is an aggregation of elementary facts, NOT objects

As long as we have to talk and rely on language to communicate and create, Philosophy will be an unavoidable part of everything we do (including and especially Science).

Why? Philosophy of language doesn't produce any answer about language anyway.

Things that exist in the reality, since all words exist in reality, so do what they model. Even an idea exists, a physical actibity that is happening in your brain.

Even God exists, as a word, but, the remaining is how you want to define it.

That doesn't look at all like what I got from the Tractatus m8. Are you sure you're not presenting your own thing there?

i am not capable of really producing anything of my own, I haven't created English what I'm using at the moment, or math, but I'm working on model theory, and it's great overall.

Otherwise just stating how the world is, like Tractatus is.

You have studied etymology for sure, nothing mysterious about the creation of words and meanings, but still it's something out of this world to many who argue what it is, likely to you too?

>Philosophy is playing with words, words that humans have created.
Yeah but so is math.

OP:
"Philosophy is playing with words, words that humans have created.
>points at finger at something in nature, I call that tree, that is not a tree, I call that a rock.

Like that, all words are created like that, and symbols, everything that models nature."

Witty:
"2.01 An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things).

2.021 Objects form the substance of the world. Therefore they cannot
be compound.
2.0211 If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had
sense would depend on whether another proposition was true.
2.0212 It would then be impossible to form a picture of the world (true
or false).
2.022 It is clear that however different from the real one an imagined
world may be, it must have something—a form—in common
with the real world."
2.023 This fixed form consists of the objects."

i don't believe you at all.

changing and adjusting axioms is definitely something mathematicians work with. at best you're a highschool cuck

More and more word games, when will this end.

TLP is a great work of analytic philosophy.
I'm guessing you're just trolling or very young.

Don't worry, you'll be ignored.

TLP, take a wild guess what of more that one is, more arrangements of words.

And no I'm not a philosopher, more into applied math, model creator, just thought about focusing on "philosophy" for a short while, and that is the naked truth of it, arranging words that in best case scenario somewhat model the reality.

But hah yea, ironically even I can't escape from using words to model what I have to say to you, neither can you, same with math.. sucks, like being imprisoned.

>not wrestling the fucker to ground before he can lift the axe
Things surely went to shit after the ancient times.

>I think therefore I am
kek does that mean that a rock does not exist because it can't think?

>herp how do I contraposition

Does a rock exist you can touch to a lifeform that exists in a hypothetical an another universe in the multiverse?

No, but it still exists.

Words games suck, reality is what it is, can't change it with word games.

>herp derp muh word games

No, it means that a rock that doesn't exist cannot think.
>All squares are rectangles
>Anything that isn't a square isn't a rectangle, either
See, that doesn't work, just like all rectangles are squares doesn't work.

It's scary that a math phd doesn't know his rectangles from his squares

Philosotards absolutely BTFO

What about the rocks that does exist. Can they think? If not why even vomit such a pseudointellectual sentence?

See what that is again, word games?

You can say all rectangles aren't squares, since you can define those words the way you want, but in reality all you have done is playing with yourself there.

Yes, rocks can think, if you define "to think" the way rocks do it in reality.

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? You make up the rules, the closer the rules are to reality, like theory of gravity, the better usually.

Everything you say can be true! That's why X can represent the solution to literally anything.

>What about the rocks that does exist. Can they think?

We. Don't. Know.

It may not fit into your world-view but consciousness is not something we can test for. We say "we don't know," you pseudointellectual freshman.

Also note, you troglodyte, "I think; therefore, I am," is a statement concerning the philosophy of what can be known, not whether rocks can think.

It's fine to have a position on a topic, but you have to understand the topic in the first place.

exactly.

It always make me laugh when some steamtard tries to learn/explain philosophy, its quite funny when they finally have to think for the first time without any dogma.

No, rocks can not think.

Because we define those words, rocks don't think in any model we create, because we say so. If something thinks, it's not a rock.

It always make me laugh when some steamtard tries to learn/explain philosophy, its quite funny when they finally have to think for the first time without any dogma.

The writer of TLP (Wittgenstein) said, all problems of philosophy are problems of language.

But you really should study philosophy before having such an obviously emotional response to it.

>philosophy are problems of language
Confirmed all scientists are autists who take everything literally, TOP KEK.

what?

Stating that "it's abstract" ad nauseam doesn't move the conversation along. It's incredibly easy to say that about anything. Computers are abstract. The scientific method is abstract. And? Your "word games" argumentation equally amounts to no new information.

The fundamental point is that you, reading this, can understand what I am trying to convey to you. Who cares if some far-off chunk of memetic polyalloy may or may not see it the same way? The "word games" are involved, sure, but there's a thought process involved as well. Until some STEMfag invents a machine that will allow philosophical ponderings to be transmitted directly without the use of icky language, we'll have to do with the word games for a while.

Also, in case you respond to this with "see, it's all just word games!", reminder that it's a cop out on your part and you know it.

Yes, word games are important and I get what you are trying to convey me.

In the end we are just two people making lights appear on screen, meaningless way to use word games, unlike word games that lead to actions.

Are you familiar with models, modelling words and word games?
Like, did you create a model of the reality after I read your text, and what else did you forsee except me responding you with this meaningless text.

>If not why even vomit such a pseudointellectual sentence?
To explain a principle of logic that the person I was directly replying to failed to learn in grade school. It's pretty clear why I said it in my original post. You might want to look into lessons on reading comprehension

I don't see your point. I guess you're advocating for the abandonment of human language? Telepathy hasn't been invented yet, you know. All the people you say "do real science through the scientific method" use human languages that are entirely arbitrarily defined. In fact every possible way to communicate information from one mind to another makes use of arbitrary "words" (be they actual words or other symbols of complicated concepts) in one way or another.

You understand English language don't you, getting the point would be easy, point might be just non sense though :D

Yes, words are an amazing way to share information, there's a catch though, it distracts you, you might end up talking about something, without actually making any difference.
Always keep the model of reality you want to achieve with your talking, the goal in your mind.
Philosophical talk is really meaningless, about ethics for example, you can answer these question using the scientific method, creating models.

>Philosophy is playing with words, words that humans have created.
Welcome to the Nietzsche world. Where every metaphysics topic is devastated and only the brave can survive.

Isn't metaphysics only word games, if you give absolute meaning to words, then you can't really destroy them, right?

It's actually a metaphor of how Nietzsche showed metaphysic philosophers(Kant) that made-up analogic concepts of phenomena->noumena, is actually inaccurate.

Most of those concepts implied that a existed,(hierarchy and categorization of ideas) also, the centre of attention before his ideas and Marx/Engels' was the epistemological and metaphisical problem.

In other words, the main topic of philosophers before him, was "Do I exist?".

He also affirmed that the actual concepts are "unreal" because reality is changing constantly, and the post-abrahamic occidental culture focus on rejecting the fact that the reality is actually not what it seems, and we imply what I said before: "Concepts are as real as phenomena".

It's actually interesting how this guy also criticized science.

Wow wait! about telepathy, there is a way we can read our minds, it's not pseudoscience, but more of a like how we know the same answer to mathematical problems by looking at the same problem kinda of a thing.

This same concept, understanding can be applied with model theory, it's basically like telepathy, but it seriously requires knowledge and skill to know to calculate the best possible outcomes to different situations, like when playing a game there is only one best way to do things if the goal is to win.

That is interesting truly, have you studied philosophy yourself, like if you were given the task to answer the question Do I exist, how would you begin to answer that one?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/

Lol, how is that a problem, if it's just something that exists in nature? a fact.

Problem by definition*

goddamnit, read Wittgenstein first and then speculate about "words" and "symbols"

All thought is anthropomorphic.
Humans are curious and therefore ask questions.
Why? Because they'd like to understand the world, and that's why the build models, . Why? Because they are curious. Why? Why? Why? Ad Infinitum...

I didn't get a degree of philosophy, but I actually liked how Nietzsche thought about the world. His romantic POV was a great goldmine for my ego-delusional side back then.

>I misread the intro paragraph to Wittgenstein wikipedia page
Also not Veeky Forums, as much as you want it to be, saged
Bill Nye pls go. I actually, sincerely hope you guys are trolling.
Nah, you're just ignorant.

>It's another "I know nothing about philosophy so it's fake and gay" thread