/lit/ - Literature

That will never happen, since philosophy is constrained by language.

>>4723169
>language won't be able to fully explain it
That seems to have been the case at least as far back as Schopenhauer.

Philosophy is already dead. Leave its rotten corpse alone.

>>4723169
Do you think language will reach a point where it's complex enough to fully explain philosophy?

Philosophy will never become as complex as science.

>>4723341
Science is a part of philosophy, read a book

>>4723351
Science has been separated from philosophy since the 19th century. Go take a science class.

>>4723360
>science

Ah yes..the SCIENCE class.

>>4723360
I don't think you know what philosophy is

>>4723169
Language has no limit.

>>4723382
I think you're projecting. Please tell me what you believe philosophy is and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

>>4723169

Certainly not. If you can't put it in words, how would you even know your ideas are complex? What you describe is basically what postmodernism/poststructuralist philosophy wants to be though. It's how they justify writing nonsense, and often not making sense.

>>4723387
phi·los·o·phy

noun

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence

>>4723169
>No.

But philosophy is wholly defined by what language can do. Trying to do philosophy without language is like trying to make an omelet without eggs - whatever you end up with isn't going to be philosophy, whatever it may be.

>>4723388

Basically, what this guy said. You can't make a philosophical thought happen unless you're using language. I can, however, see this changing - for example, what if philosophy were totally formalized? This may seem like a truly daunting task, but I can imagine the development of a logic for logic-creation, or a "metalogic", if you'll allow me to use a fancy-sounding term, which would be a logic which itself formally governs and predicts the formulations of further logics, presumably such that each philosophical subject - and perhaps even every philosophical debate (i.e. the mind-body debate, the debate of how mathematics relates to the universe, etc.) - would have its own logic, and be fully formalized. That's just an idea that's been floating around in my head, and I can't see why it COULDN'T be done, and indeed I would hail anyone who could make philosophy a formal discipline as being the most significant philosopher of all time. So ultimately I agree with the poster I quoted, however I don't think it has to be that way.

>>4723404
>knowledge
Knowledge is information stored in the brain. Studied by neuroscience.

>reality
Reality is the physical universe. Studied by physics.

>and existence
Things either exist or they don't. Nothing to argue here.

So what exactly does philosophy do? After I just demonstrated that its defining objects are either meaningless or already taken by science, there seems to be nothing left to philosophy.

>>4723401
Call me the second this pleb is capable of voicing a single coherent thought and then we can talk

Philosophy should be regarded as general inquiry. Its easy to assume that philosophy try's to sum up all of our concerns, and its safe to say science wants to predict the tendencies of nature and so on; but it is difficult to understand why we need to fulfill our knowledge at all. We think we are searching for truth but what we are searching for is not what it appears to be, much like ourselves.

>>4723441
Isn't that basically what Analytic Philosophy is, though? With its various proofs and such, isn't there a whole shorthand language of "proven truths," based on teleological jargon that only those versed in the craft can interpret?

Isn't the meta-understanding in analytic philosophy the application, after learning these terms, of this language as if it were a language separate from conventional language?

I'm not an analytic philosopher, so I'm not in any position to make this claim. I just wondering out loud.

>>4723528

I can tell you, as a staunch Analytic, that this is absolutely, positively, untrue. We have propositional logic, predicate logic, the two modal logics, deontic logics, and a handful of weird nonclassical logics. This does not begin to touch upon all the subjects concerned with in philosophy. Logic, as it is now, can help us talk about things like sets and possibilities and that sort of thing (basically about the things which we would talk about when dealing with those logics), but cannot begin to help us talk about, as I mentioned, the mind-body problem, or many things about the foundations of mathematics, or about phenomenology, or hard AI. I'm saying that it seems not implausible to me that we could formally produce logics to accommodate all those things. And, while we're on it, you seem to be rather dismissive of formal logic, and it is true, indeed, that one must be "initiated" to understand it (i.e., one has to learn something - SHOCKING, I know), however, when it comes to postmodernism, there is nothing to be initiated into, as far as I can tell - rather it is gibberish, through-and-through.

>>4723360
Science is the art of the possible.

No.
Every concept already exists. If you think you find a new concept, make a word for it. There's probably already a synonym.

That's called faith.

>>4724176
what's called faith?

>>4724158
>Every concept already exists.

The job of philosophers is creating new concepts.

>>4724197
Well then they're all pretty bad at it.

>>4724196
Philosophy which purports to be too complex and abstract to be comprehended through language. OR mysticism. when it purports that it can't be comprehended through language, but that there are practices such as meditation that can facilitate comprehension.

>>4724196
A philosophy that reaches a point in which it becomes so complex that language won't be able to fully explain it.

>>4724176
Nice.

>>4724220
So basically when philosophy inclines towards apophatism?

When philosophy becomes too complex, it is the fault of the language, not the philosopher or philosophy.

Op here

>>4723179
>That will never happen, since philosophy is constrained by language.
>>4723441
>But philosophy is wholly defined by what language can do.

Could you please explain why is this? Why is philosophy restricted to the boundaries of our incomplete, concrete language? Hasn't philosophy attempted to find some Master discourse in the metalanguage?

>>4724224
>Nice.
ty

>>4724260
It doesn't have to. In fact, in many ways apophatism is simplistic as fuck, it verges on Manichean.

>>4724176
Faith is thinking that language can fully explain anything.

>>4724288
go to bed Dorito

>>4723169
>Do you think philosophy will reach a point in which it becomes so complex that language won't be able to fully explain it?

As it is, language is an extremely limiting method for transferring knowledge and understanding the world. Running the human brain on language is like running a supercomputer on Javascript. But unless some unforeseen development of telepathy happens we will be stuck with it for the time being.

And I would say that language's development and philosophy's development go hand in hand. As the language becomes better at describing complex ideas philosophy will go forward as well

Disclaimer: I'm talking out of my ass

>>4724288
No, it is not. There is no attempt to explain the exact mechanics of God or her actions. The phrase "The Lord works in mysterious ways," sums up the nature of faith nicely.

>>4723442
Not understanding the value of continental philosophy.

>>4724275
'The limits of my language are the limits of my world' - Wittgenstein

>>4723442
Philosophy studies shit like the ethics of power.

>>4724288
It surprises me that nobody has brought up any of the many limitations of language. You can't transmit qualia linguistically for instance.

>>4724321
This is often used an argument for the existence of God, especially after a personal experience.

>>4724311
"Hurr" - Durr

Eastern philosophy is often exactly like that

the most famous example of this being the Zen koans, which are completely inexplicable and can only be 'felt' or can trigger understanding

>>4724330
Why would that suggest that God exists? It's just a linguistic limitation.

>>4724333
But that is a very good saying. If you want to think logically(you shouldn't always but it's useful) you are limited by your grasp of language. Read on the left and right sides of brain, you'll start to understand your thinking better. Drawing on the Right Side of Brain is a good book even though it's basically a guide to drawfaggotry(and a good one at that)

>>4724345
>read news
>Zen Koans Explained!
>my face

>>4723442

>knowledge
Knowledge is "information" (just what is meant when we say that is itself a philosophical question, as well as one for physics, mathematics, and computer science) stored in the mind as well. Neuroscience can't cover that entirely
>reality
Reality includes abstract entities, most chiefly classes and relations, but also minds, and indeed even this thing you call "information" is quite possibly an abstract entity.
>and existence
I believe when he says this he means human existence as described by Heidegger - that is to say, "Dasein". I think it is curious to focus in on this to something so important to philosophy, but sure, I'll include that as well.