Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Forget the Cant... Moral forms do not have structures, unless we think of the form itself as the structure of relationships... Even there, what it does is structure the relationship, and is not a structure, or any other reality... Truth as all moral forms is only meaning...

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

jeeprs wrote:

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Doesn't the definition of truth come from the way it's used? If you can't define it then I don't see how you can use it.

I don't think it's that these words have a vast domain of meaning that we can't grasp, but rather that people think they can make up their own definitions.

Fido wrote:

Forget the Cant... Moral forms do not have structures, unless we think of the form itself as the structure of relationships... Even there, what it does is structure the relationship, and is not a structure, or any other reality... Truth as all moral forms is only meaning...

Forget what? What is "the Cant"? I didn't get that. Has it anything to do with Immanuel Kant?

You have quite a collection of "definitions" of truth: a moral form, a relationship, life, knowledge, meaning, and so on, none of which is an effective definition. A definition would make you know precisely what you are talking about when you utter the word "truth." The way you are now, when you say "truth" you can be talking about almost anything.

And last but not least, you must not forget there is not only truth, but also falsehood, the same way there is not only life, but also death.

There's nothing wrong with philosophy in principle. But it attracts a lot of idiots. And idiotic philosophy can easily have an effect on things.

I think it's a combination of logical arguments/proofs/concepts being hard to understand, and people who study it for the wrong reasons, like "I want to know something deeeep, you know".

Yes, mainly. But I am sure it is also true that the more general words are harder to define. There are words we think we know the meaning of, until we try and explain it, and then find that it is really very hard to pin down. 'The process of philosophizing, to my mind, consists mainly in passing from those obvious, vague, ambiguous things, that we feel quite sure of, to something precise, clear, definite, which by reflection and analysis we find is involved in the vague thing that we start from, and is, so to speak, the real truth of which that vague thing is a sort of shadow", said Russell, in connection to his 'logical atomism'. But then, he was never really able to define a "logical atom" subsequently.

So - let's think about the definition of 'irony'......

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

jeeprs wrote:

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Doesn't the definition of truth come from the way it's used? If you can't define it then I don't see how you can use it.

I don't think it's that these words have a vast domain of meaning that we can't grasp, but rather that people think they can make up their own definitions.

Yes, mainly. But I am sure it is also true that the more general words are harder to define. There are words we think we know the meaning of, until we try and explain it, and then find that it is really very hard to pin down. 'The process of philosophizing, to my mind, consists mainly in passing from those obvious, vague, ambiguous things, that we feel quite sure of, to something precise, clear, definite, which by reflection and analysis we find is involved in the vague thing that we start from, and is, so to speak, the real truth of which that vague thing is a sort of shadow", said Russell, in connection to his 'logical atomism'. But then, he was never really able to define a "logical atom" subsequently.

So - let's think about the definition of 'irony'......

Jebediah wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Doesn't the definition of truth come from the way it's used? If you can't define it then I don't see how you can use it.

I don't think it's that these words have a vast domain of meaning that we can't grasp, but rather that people think they can make up their own definitions.

In-fin-ites cannot be de-fin-ed...God, consciousness, or being have infinitude in common... They are not true concepts as the concept of number is; but are moral forms... It is in the way we define them, or attempt to, that we define ourselves...If the terms mean something to us we can mean something to ourselves... Great forms are the most objective measure of mankind that we have, though the are the most subjective of meanings...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Forget the Cant... Moral forms do not have structures, unless we think of the form itself as the structure of relationships... Even there, what it does is structure the relationship, and is not a structure, or any other reality... Truth as all moral forms is only meaning...

Forget what? What is "the Cant"? I didn't get that. Has it anything to do with Immanuel Kant?

You have quite a collection of "definitions" of truth: a moral form, a relationship, life, knowledge, meaning, and so on, none of which is an effective definition. A definition would make you know precisely what you are talking about when you utter the word "truth." The way you are now, when you say "truth" you can be talking about almost anything.

And last but not least, you must not forget there is not only truth, but also falsehood, the same way there is not only life, but also death.

You need a dictionary... I could loan you one, since i may have twenty of one sort or another... I was reading one today and found the apple of your eye... Imagine that... Dr. Johnson made an issue of Cant, like signing a letter: Your obediant servant... No one is such a thing, so no one should say it... Talking of virtues as female spirits, talking of moral forms as having some substance; is all cant... See the thing as it is... Tell it like it is...

There is such a thing as water, and air, and temperature, but there is no truth... It is a moral form... It stands for a meaning without a being...That meaning called truth exists because we exist, and we find the term, the quasi concept of truth to be useful, and troubing...Talking of physical reality, truth as a form does point to a specific reality... But truth itself is only a moral form...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Forget the Cant... Moral forms do not have structures, unless we think of the form itself as the structure of relationships... Even there, what it does is structure the relationship, and is not a structure, or any other reality... Truth as all moral forms is only meaning...

Forget what? What is "the Cant"? I didn't get that. Has it anything to do with Immanuel Kant?

You have quite a collection of "definitions" of truth: a moral form, a relationship, life, knowledge, meaning, and so on, none of which is an effective definition. A definition would make you know precisely what you are talking about when you utter the word "truth." The way you are now, when you say "truth" you can be talking about almost anything.

And last but not least, you must not forget there is not only truth, but also falsehood, the same way there is not only life, but also death.

You need a dictionary... I could loan you one, since i may have twenty of one sort or another... I was reading one today and found the apple of your eye... Imagine that... Dr. Johnson made an issue of Cant, like signing a letter: Your obediant servant... No one is such a thing, so no one should say it... Talking of virtues as female spirits, talking of moral forms as having some substance; is all cant... See the thing as it is... Tell it like it is...

There is such a thing as water, and air, and temperature, but there is no truth... It is a moral form... It stands for a meaning without a being...That meaning called truth exists because we exist, and we find the term, the quasi concept of truth to be useful, and troubing...Talking of physical reality, truth as a form does point to a specific reality... But truth itself is only a moral form...

There is such a thing as water, and air, and temperature, but there is no truth... It is a moral form... It stands for a meaning without a being...That meaning called truth exists because we exist, and we find the term, the quasi concept of truth to be useful, and troubing...Talking of physical reality, truth as a form does point to a specific reality... But truth itself is only a moral form...

But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

Jebediah wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

added to which, there are many terms, especially in philosophy, which you can't simply define. 'Truth' is a case in point. Every attempt I see to 'define truth' ends up in tautology or, more likely, complete incoherence and waffle. It's easy to define words that have a particular meaning, the more particular, the easier. But many of the overarching concerns of philosophy have a vast domain of meaning, and saying 'what is your definition of truth' (or God, or Consciousness, or Being, or [insert term here]) is an exercise in futility.

The meaning of these words can be usefully elicited in conversation about matters of value. Then there are times when you can see what they mean. This is why ultimately philosophy has to mean something to you, it has to count for something, you have to have some skin in the game, as the saying has it. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Doesn't the definition of truth come from the way it's used? If you can't define it then I don't see how you can use it.

I don't think it's that these words have a vast domain of meaning that we can't grasp, but rather that people think they can make up their own definitions.

And I think that people say a word has no definition simply because they don't want to discuss their own definition of it.

All English words have meanings, and their meanings are given in their definitions, which anyone can easily look up.