FUCKKK Why doesn't anyone define their terms???...

>my existential theories are more important
>because I claim primacy for the ontological
>despite this being a consequent of my theoretical position
>also we are meant to be talking about death
>but instead I’m using my assumptions as proof

It's literally
>dude science isn't even real lmao

Not him, but I get called a post modernist if I claim that it is difficult to express ideas without subjectivity.

You have to learn to read the symbols as symbols. To see the sunlight through the candle light so to speak.

Attached: images (73).jpg (783x391, 66K)

Stop watching debates on twitch and youtube

Nobody is telling you not to ask what a term is.
Just be humble or at least pretend to be

I can hardly imagine what political conversations around here would look like if there existed at least a bare minimum definition of 'left' and 'right' that everybody agreed on.

I define "pedophile" as someone who believes that people should define their terms more often. OP, would you agree that, by my definition, you are a pedophile?

don't define, taboo
lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words

nothing.

this is only a problem if you're arguing with anonymous people online

Terms describe things that actually are. We may be clumsy with the expressions, but the real thing is what's what.
Intentional misunderstanding for political gain, now that's a vice of our time.

>What does the world consist of?
What do you mean by world? :^) please give me a definition so that we may have a common ground.
> What is it possible to know?
What do you mean by knowing?:^) please give me a definition so that we may have a common ground.
> Are there general principles that determine correct action in all cases?
What are your definitions of "Principles" and "correct" and "action"? :^) please give me a definition so that we may reach a common ground.

Attached: 42197.jpg (600x600, 86K)

>that moment you realize wittgenstein was right all along

define "define".

Idk, I rather see destiny debate video than watching JP vs zizek again

Not OP but i'll bite.
Defining something is telling you what I think a symbol or word means.

I think this squiggly line is a representation of waves in a ocean. Do you agree with this? If not, what do you think this symbol is, so we can work this out together.

Attached: Waves.png (1000x934, 9K)

I think it's a bone plating rune from the resolve tree.

Capitalism, communism, socialism, left, right, so so poorly defined.

take a philosophy class once. if you use a word like "Being" or "substance" and don't at least suggest which philosophers concept of the word you are using, you will get hung up on terms for sure

I get it, frustrating. “Right” economically is free market, and alt-right is naziism?

The entire purpose of a university education is to learn how to define the terms you find in genres like philosophy, sociology, political theory, etc.

>substance
>as in Aristotle? Descartes? Spinoza? Kant? Hegel? are you a monist or a dualist?
>lol go 2 skool

When the terms cause more confusion and controversy than understanding, I think there is a problem with the terms.

if you use simple language people pretend the words are too vauge and don't mean anything, but the moment you start talking about hylomorphic dualism or speculative ontology, suddenly you are an obscurantist who uses terms people don't know to trick them or something. talking philosophy with normies is a rigged game

how do you even define terms without defining what is language first?

>common ground
spooked

what's a symbol? what's the relationship between a symbol and a what it represents? can you even discuss those questions without assuming an answer for them if you decide that defining terms should be the beginning of any philosophical discussion?

Even though most people don’t have philosophy expertise, they can comprehend ideas. If someone could explain those ideas to me in ordinary language, then it would be comprehensible and we could have a dialogue, which is the purpose of language.

right, but if everytime someone wants to talk about an issue you need a rundown on several philosophical concepts it's probably not worth having the conversation. you might as well say physicists should teach you classical mechanics before he starts talking about relativity; part of this is up to you to educate yourself in the field you want to engage in

Read.

>What
????
>do
????
>you
????
>mean
????
>by
????
>world
????
>please
????
>give
????
>me
????
>a
????
>definition
????
>so
????
>that
????
>we
????
>may
????
>have
????
>common
????
>ground
????

read Hobbes

Attached: Hobbes.jpg (432x676, 158K)

That's even worse. Why even make a statement or argument if one doesn't even know what they're trying to say. It just ends up with defensiveness and avoidance of admitting what they don't know. It leads to hollow and unsatisfactory conversations. People are too obsessed with learning how to be a "good speaker" while missing the most important part which is having something genuine that you want to express in words. Instead they wanna be able to throw around words and hope it obfuscates things enough so that the fact that they have nothing genuine to say is never revealed.

language is a force and a form, not a content. definitions are the plaything of the deranged.

read this

Attached: 410YfrKXJFL._SX335_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (337x499, 23K)

nigga needs fideism it has a profoundly universal ethic of always beginning a rationale from where you are

Read Derrida and/or a dictionary

read Saussure

This bothered me for a long time. I was intimidated by philosophy because I thought everyone had this shared field of philosophical learning and understanding I would never come to. Then I realized, as Wittgenstein goes to great lengths to elaborate, all communication is miscommunication, even in the simplest of conversations between one person and another the exchange of words is always imprecise and pregnant with ambiguous, unintended, and unseen meanings. Even in giving a term definition - and wherefrom does this definition come and what makes it among the many different definitions authoritative? - ambiguity follows unless that word is used in an explicitly rigid systematic way unproductive to discussing broad and impractical matters like philosophy, because one finds the same ambiguities as words in concepts, and that accepting this these ambiguities of language become preferred. Even in mathematics certainty only goes as far as the bounds of one practical system. As soon as one enters theoretical space you're fucked.

It took me a lot of reading before realizing no philosophers were using words or concepts in exactly the same ways. You have your own unique interpretation of every word as every concept and every philosophy. It's why a philosopher's greatest admirers may still be told they are misinterpreting them. It is not for lack of trying. Wittgenstein told Russell he didn't understand the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Sartre wrote a 500 some page response to Heidegger's Being and Time and is told he misinterpreted it. Nietzsche studies Schopenhauer and anyways becomes Nietzsche. Stirner studies Hegel and anyways because Stirner of very different Spirit.

There is nowhere in life you are going to get clear definitions of things. It's time to grow up user. You have to make these calls for yourself.

Attached: 1555195720652.jpg (850x400, 68K)

Everyone should just abide by Lalande's dictionary but it causes butthurt to some people because they don't get the fancy formulas for their own positions.
The more obscurantist kind also looks very dumb when phrased in clear terms. Just phrasing Hegel like this is enough to dispel all the esoteric aura around him.

>I'm extremely autistic and Wittgenstein validates me