/lit/ - Literature

>>14219593
based Euclid

>>14219580
>It's not gobbledygook in the sense of internal inconsistency, it's gobbledygook in the sense that it tries to build up schemes of "pure" logic that are really dependent on tacitly held, underlying ontologies.
Well put. But those ontologies are nevertheless the foundations for our natural language, which has gotten us pretty far in philosophy even if it is imperfect. Syllogism comes to mind, analogy is a heck of a tool but there's no arguing that it can easily lead to bad conclusions even when it works well. It's useful only insofar as we use it in the territory it belongs to: describing human experience using human language.

>>14219514
>Can you believe this shit? It’s literal nonsense.
I'm inclined to agree but I don't have the vocabulary for it. "It's Greek to me." It would make sense I'm sure if I studied it but then I'd be operating in Esperanto, a specialized language that very few people use and this limits its utility as a weapon in the arsenal of philosophy as we have understood it so far. Which truth is this formal language trying to get at?

I'm piqued. Where do I start with Witty?