95% of philosophy is just arguing over semantics

shut up nerd wittgenstein ended philosophy and thats a fact

Hey, im only minoring in philosophy, faggot

The best philosophy threads were from a year ago before Veeky Forums came out. Veeky Forums 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

LOL Good One !

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

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".

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

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

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

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

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

Only good response ITT

this is why STEM does not respect modern philosophy

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

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

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"?

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.)

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.

>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.

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

t. STEMsperg

>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.

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.

What do you mean by 'properly'?

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

This is why we argue over semantics.

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

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

>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...

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.

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

it's already happening capt. autism

Yeah, smug cocksuckers do.

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

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

that's literally how it has always worked my frend

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

>ill-posed

I hope people punch you as a form of greeting.

Why do you want to resolve them?

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

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

I'm just going by what OP has said.

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.

>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.

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.