Philosophy

Williams12

Do you read about Philosophy or like it?

Doubleme

everyone does to some extent but if you want a conversation on philiosophy you need to pick a topic.

for example have you ever considered the philosophical ramifications of semantical distinction?

Williams12

Doubleme said:

everyone does to some extent but if you want a conversation on philiosophy you need to pick a topic.

for example have you ever considered the philosophical ramifications of semantical distinction?

I'm not sure I did. What does that mean and what is it about

Essexphil

Williams12 said:

Doubleme said:

everyone does to some extent but if you want a conversation on philiosophy you need to pick a topic.

for example have you ever considered the philosophical ramifications of semantical distinction?

I'm not sure I did. What does that mean and what is it about

One of the more obscure branches of philosophy, propounded by the likes of Russell and Wittgenstein. Not a fan of their philosophical thinking, particularly their overpromotion as to the importance/use of language. Although they spoke a lot of sense on more practical matters.

I find philosophy fascinating. And a lot of philosophers less so-mainly because they seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time slagging off other philosophers and their ideas.

Doubleme

well you know what every word their means so it should not be to hard to determine the meaning of this.

ramifications is like effects of or consequences of
semantical distinction is semantics what words we use and how we define things and the distinction is distinguishing between this.

How we use language the definitions and identies we apply directly change and influence our conclusions. To illustrate a famour philosophical question,

If you have boat made entirely almost entirely from wood now over time you replace plank of wood after plank of wood each peice at a time over a long period of time, does it become another boat or is it still the same boat? What if at some point in the future it is such that not a single peice of the wood at the beggining is now part of the boat so that every single particle of the boat has been replaced over time. Is it still the same boat or now a different boat and at what point did it become a different boat if it is a different boat? Now if we assume someone saved all the peices each time a peice was replaced and they now build an entire boat out of all those peices which one is the original boat the one with all the new peices because continuity of the boat? or the one with all the old peices?

you can debate the answer to that question a lot it is considered a difficult paradox in philosophy but it is actually a wasted effort to debate. because in truth there is no correct answer just a choice and whether we agree with that choice. You see the identity of the boat or boats in question is just a tool a label of identity to which we have conjoured up to have a point of referece in communication. The answer is whatever label we have chosen to give things and the confusion comes from the fact that our labels and identity tools in language are flawed and not water tight.

Often this is what causes a lot of disagreement. Just Semantics.

rabdeniro

Doubleme said:

everyone does to some extent but if you want a conversation on philiosophy you need to pick a topic.

for example have you ever considered the philosophical ramifications of semantical distinction?

Ah was thinkin aboot that one maself, but ah decided to go down the philosophical Vodka or Holsten Pils route tonight , and Vodka was the answer .