[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 477 KB, 960x904, 1489699822351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13728917 No.13728917 [Reply] [Original]

Our language is heavily flawed for philsophy. For instance there isn't a casual way to distinguish whether you are stating how you believe things are or how you believe things should be. Often in discourse, especially banter, you will see people in bad faith sarcastically adopt a straw man of their opponent, and the audience is supposed to just pick up on this as though it weren't sincere without having received any signal to do so. In another thread on this board someone posted a picture of Schopenhauer and asked whether it was moral to have children. Someone said "only if you're not white." to which multiple people responded with a /pol/ redirect. One anon however said "no, idiot, he is reverse /pol/" as if to imply that the original statement was one positing how things ought to be, (i.e., white people shouldn't be allowed to have children) versus one positing how things are (i.e., this SJW-riddled society thinks it's bad when white people reproduce). What did anon mean, really? I have no fucking clue because our languages offers no immediate distinction in these kinds of statements.

I propose an alteration to the english language so that declarations stating how things SHOULD BE are clearly distinct from declarations stating HOW THINGS ARE, as well as verb conjugation to indicate SARCASM. No I am not "autistic."

>> No.13728928

ok

>> No.13728947

>>13728928
thank you for your support, anon

when will we implement this change

>> No.13728952

>>13728917
What we really need is distinctions between types of love, it would have prevented the Beatles from blasphemously punning charity with fornication.

>> No.13728969

>>13728917
Is this the start of the AI "singularity"?

>> No.13728971

>>13728917
One way we could do these things, at least through text, it for different fonts to have different meanings. For example, there could be a font for sarcasm, and a font for SHOULD BE, and a font for HOW THINGS ARE

>> No.13728981

This doesn't sound autistic at all.

>> No.13729030

>>13728917
The person could've easily clarified by starting the sentence with either, 'I believe,' or 'It seems in today's world...'

At any rate, I deride your proposal because it eliminates the possibility of man to express his proper condition, one of radical ambiguity.

And yes, you're autistic.

>> No.13729034

I will implement your idea into my constructed language (conlang)

>> No.13729045
File: 52 KB, 680x835, 1515265558553.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13729045

>>13729030
op here,

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEgards.

>> No.13729048

>>13728917
>For instance there isn't a casual way to distinguish whether you are stating how you believe things are or how you believe things should be.
I have noticed this as well, in relation to social darwinism or just darwinism in general.
>according to darwinism the most well adapted individuals survive
>OH SO YOU THINK NON WELL ADAPTED PEOPLE SHOULD BE KILLED HUH
But I don't really see the problem. There is a clear language difference between stating the way things are and the way things should be, indicated by using words such as "should".
I think your idea is noble but ultimately useless, you will never be able to stop people from purposely misinterpreting words in bad faith.

>> No.13729051

>>13729034
Thank you, anon.

Now you must have many children and teach them your conlang from birth so that this implementation memifies itself permanently into the human species

>> No.13729081

>>13728917
Wow if only formal languages existed to discuss things natural language isn't good at.

I think what you mean to refer to, is the human thought process, not just language.

>I have a hard time picking up on social cues
>No I am not autistic.
Actually, that one's just you. A lot of the apparently sneakier things you can do with language, can actually be epistemically useful at times. To have a term which indicates scarcasm would kill it, as you wouldn't be able to use that term sarcastically, at least not with it as the outermost term in your series of nested sarc-markers. Imagine trying to make a joke about that.

>> No.13729098

>>13729048
>OH SO YOU THINK
Plenty of times it's the person who introduced darwinism to the discussion who's jumping from "does" to "should."

>> No.13729116

>>13728971
There is a font for all those things and it's comic sans.

>> No.13729118

Language is heavily flawed for expressing anything meaningful in general. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent

>> No.13729121

>>13729098
Of course it happens both ways, it was just an example.

>> No.13729144
File: 212 KB, 1662x1760, IMAG0013_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13729144

>>13729051

I will anon

>> No.13730333

>>13728917
this is just that old korzybski stuff again, what makes you think you'll be any more successful than he was?

>> No.13730782

>>13728917
In the example you gave, there is literally no such problem. The two states you propose, how things are and how things ought to be, have nothing to do with the meaning of the exchange you gave as an example. The question was: Is it moral to have children? The answer was: only if you're not white. If the answer was given in earnest, then it was a statement on the morality of whites having children. If it was given in jest, then the meaning is not readily clear, though we might infer it was sarcastic commentary on sjw shit.
How things are as opposed to how things ought to be, do not figure into it. If you want others to be so particular with language, you should try being more accurate too.

>> No.13731593

>>13728952
Spanish has three terms for the levels of love: amar (intense love, e.g. your wife, lover, sometimes mother, father), querer (a little weaker but still strong love, e.g. your siblings, close friends, father, mother, or sometimes you say this to your loved ones instead of the other term in order to not sound too intense) and tener cariño (the weakest kind, reserved for casual friends, colleagues, pets, etc.)