You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Философски форуми → Philosophical discussions in English → To be or not ....to be
How poor Shakes' tounge is in the speech? Is Ham thinking of himself as to be a stone, a rock, an element or something...
Engglish is not the language for doing philosophy. Look at the history. Poetry - mayy be, but never philosophy. Analisys - should say "yes, we can do it", but description rathrer than notions.
If you do think that "English is not the language for doing philosophy", why do you initiate a discussion under the label "Philosophical discussions in English"?
...Engglish is not the language for doing philosophy...
Language is not for doing something else. Language is for languaging…<<….>>.
So, I agree that English is not a language for doing nothing but language. The same for German and Bulgarian, French and Greek, ….
Is it what you mean, arture?
To some extent, just for fun, I agree with arture .
Can you translate in English (so to keep the difference between) "Sein" and "Seiendes" (or "бытие" and "сущее", or "битие" and "биващо") ? :) If it is NOT impossible (and this is a language with so many words hahaha), then in that language there is NOT intuition (thinking) about the ontological difference?! lol lol lol
It is not even funny! In ANY language one can find words which do not have equivalents in other languages, that does not mean that the MEANINGS of these words cannot be EXPLICATED in foreign languages.
Lilia, please, read carefully what I am saying.
Yes, sure, the meanings can be explicated, but in English, as an everyday language, seems to be that there isn't "pre-ontological" intuition about this difference?!
So, generally I think it is a very bad thing for philosophy today that many philosophers must write their work in this humble language! lol OK, Relax, just kidding...but not entirely lol :)
I would not waste my time to argue with you (or with anybody else) on this topic if I were not sure that you believed in this seriously.
I am not sure that I understand properly what exactly you mean by "pre-ontological intuition", but it seems to me that if something is "pre-ontological" it must also be "pre-linguistic" (as far as any language is ontology-laden). So, the so-called "pre-ontological intuition" (whatever it is) should be irrelevant to the language we use to explicate it.
Anyway, I do appreciate that despite your neglect of the philosophical merits of English, you do not mind to practice it :-)
Lilia, sorry, but that ..........
...............................
Anyway, I do appreciate that despite your neglect of the philosophical merits of English, you do not mind to practice it :-)
is crudely.
Why You contend that? Someone sufficient, adequate, enough-evidence?
Just bumped on that, looking at Arture's first posting I think I would rather prefer to agree with him the English is not a suitable language for doing philosophy :)
How poor Shakes' tounge is in the speech? Is Ham thinking of himself as to be a stone, a rock, an element or something...
Engglish is not the language for doing philosophy. Look at the history. Poetry - mayy be, but never philosophy. Analisys - should say "yes, we can do it", but description rathrer than notions.
Language is just a tool. Well, this one is may be not the perfect one, but, the fact that there were such good philosophers born/living in Britain/USA is coming to show us that it is quite possible to do philosophy in English.
Language is just a tool.
Oops, Think again! :)
What according to you does "Die Sprache spricht" mean? :)
Well, one might say that the language does have the function of a tool but this is not the whole story. Language could become an object of language in its function as a tool and in cases like this the language is not a tool but an object of (linguistic) investigation. Further, while trying to cope with all sorts of issues, the language constantly evolves, as we know, towards syntheticity, i.e. towards becoming simpler. And since the communicative function of the language is if not the main one at least one of the main ones we should remind ourselves that the language, even if tool, is a complex living entity of its own. At the end, we should also remember that there are things which are not linguistic, like the physical world, to give an example, and the language according to some appeared to cope with non-linguistic stuff in the first place.
Oh My hermeneutical God, I know there are some funny people out there who make "conceptual analysis" of something that they call "language" as "an object of (linguistic) investigation". These funny people also call their occupation "analytic philosophy of language".
Oh poor Language, Oh poor philosophy!
Actually, those funny people are not just the philosophers of language, which ever since Kant introduced the distinction between analytic and synthetic is far from merely a linguistic distinction. In all philologies there is the pretty well known subject of "linguistic studies" which is also pretty non-philosophical. And this subject takes language as an object of investigation. Other similar subjects are neuro-linguistics, mathematical linguistics besides linguistics itself. All of them non-philosophical subjects. That is why, unfortunately :), what you say is false. Cheers!
Dalai_tatar wrote:Language is just a tool.
Oops, Think again! :)
What according to you does "Die Sprache spricht" mean? :)
According to the St. Google Translator ;) it means "The language speaks"...But languages are "speaking" just by convention. No people = no language = no meaning,...i.e. every language is just a subjective tool for communication. The idioms are a very good&clear example of how subjective are the words, sentences and the implicated meanings in them.
By the way I really do not think that English is a well-developed language, but I can show you an example about a distinction (AXIOLOGICAL ONE!!!!!!!!!!), which is impossible to find in Bulgarian:
1. WEALTH , 2. RICH (or RICHNESS).
Философски форуми → Philosophical discussions in English → To be or not ....to be
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 4 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.