But asking those questions bring you right back at defining them. We can ignore it just like we can ignore quantum physics talking about classical physics but that just mean we are ignoring them and reducing the discussion into a frame of reference which is exactly the point of postmodernism.

But in practice we can clearly define some things objectively. If that were truly impossible, we would be unable to share common languages to any degree and it would be impossible for two separate cultures to communicate.

At some level reality itself may be an illusion and we can never be sure of time and space. However, if we concede that point, then we concede that potentially nothing exists then we cannot debate it because we don't exist either. So even by discussing a matter we are taking an assumption that we exist and that something exists for us to talk about, even if the precise meaning of the words isn't nailed down by anyone. At this point, postmodernism starts to look a bit weak, because to communicate we must assume some shared reality between two parties which is quite possibly going to be objective by both parties standards.

And in the framework of human endevour, there are a huge number of hypothetical realities we have ruled out by scientific experiment. It is overwhelmingly likely at this point that something objective exists and we've narrowed in on it quite a bit from, say, 10,000 BC.

We can define things to a good enough degree that its useful but its still a reduction of reality.

I don't think any interesting questions boil down to agreeing on a dictionary definition. Say you could get everyone to agree on the same definition for free will or consciousness. You're still left with the same questions about to what extent do we have defined free will and subjective experiences, which people will still disagree and debate on.

Unless you get people to agree on definitions that define the problem away, but then you're just going to be using a different definition to pose the question that came up, because it will keep coming up.

Language is just a tool to express ourselves. It's not the fabric of existence.

It's not about agreeing on some dictionary definition.

The exercise is semantic in the sense that it seeks to describe and then connect sets of concepts to sets of beliefs in certain contexts.

So in that sense, it's analytically deep. However what tends to happen is that most casual students get to a certain depth in PM, say undergraduate level, give up on the complexity and then throw their hands up and say "nothing is real so I can create my won world that you need to conform to." That's the problem.

Besides personal experience of phenomena what other way do you express your philosphical inquiry in? The dictionary isnt the point here, postmodernism isnt concerned about that. Its actually a critique of exactly that.

That comes with the implication that everything in classical physics is a solved problem though. Just because you can distill anything to meta-questions doesn't mean you should, or that it's (necessarily) a productive exercise for your application. You can build an engine without pondering the nature of iron atoms

You can but philosophically you cant without creating some sort of frame of reference. Scientific discoveries are not philosphical truths they are something else.

Really, it all comes back to “am I just a hallucinating brain in a vat?” But the answer to that question doesn’t much matter really. If that’s the case, why not just pack up all the books and go to the beach? Same thing with language. It’s one interesting line of inquiry, but it’s hardly the only one worth discussing.

But that's a dead end. In Francis Schaeffer's phrase, in postmodernism "language leads to language and nothing more" (emphasis added).

Language does lead to language and from a philosophical perspective, that's a valid observation that doesn't invalidate postmodernism though in fact, it supports that perspective.

Any Turing machine can be described in any other?

>Or you can stop making philosophy an exercise in linguistic analysis. Language is the tool we use to ask questions with, not the things we are asking about.

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

A large portion of my thought is very much non-linguistic.

Visuospatial thoughts are the easiest example. This even happens for things that aren't inherently spatial, like abstract concepts, if there is a useful spatial metaphor.

Will a wink suffice? How about a photograph or a song?

Edit: Language is fascinating, of course. However, I find the underlying mental layers that support it to be equally fascinating, if not more so.

Are they claims about the world or just expressions?

What's the difference?

A wink is just an expression we call a wink. We can then analyze what a wink it philosophically and make claims about it. So one is the experienced phenomena the other is inquiring about that phenoma.

Can't it be argued that the expression itself is a claim about the state of the world (= "the thing I just said was in jest").

It can but then you are back to subjective interpretation.

You can wink, that wink can have meaning or it's just a wink or you got something in your eye. How do you determine what it is without having used language somehow to establish what a wink could mean? And that's just on the surface of the amgiguity.

You agreeing with him or not has nothing to do with ‘the limits of his world’.

It’s almost as though you don’t understand what he is talking about.

I understand what he is saying in fact I am the same way. Many of my thoughts are non-verbal.

But the second they get expressed into language, philosophical analysis kicks in.

You can't express truth though but you can be it (i.e. you can wink)

Philosophical analysis kicks in when someone chooses to do it and at no other time.

Language simply isn’t the limit of anyone’s world.

It’s also plainly obvious that humans have access to many other ways of expressing themselves and communicating other than language, and some truth can certainly be expressed.

I am not sure what your point is.

The second you start claiming things about how the world is through language I can access that and analyze it through ex. a postmodern lens.

You can certainly experience all sorts of things that is beyond language to express but then they are that personal experiences and highly subjective.

What Objective truth can be expressed through language? If you knew the answer to that one you would win a Nobel price and I would certainly do whatever in my power to make sure you got it cause that would be a big deal and fundamentally change EVERYTHING.

Which is why no one has taken me up on the offer to formulate such a truth. It's simply not a useful way to think about what language expresses.

I know you aren’t sure what my point is. That’s because you think your world is limited by language.

And now you’re suddenly focussed on ‘objective truth’. Moving the goalposts because it’s obvious that truth can be expressed through means other than language.

Why not just admit that language is limited but it’s not the limit of our world, or our expression? Why is that so hard?

No its not limited by that, philosphy is. Perhaps you should read a little up on postmodern theory then you would better understand the context this is debated within. You can imagine what you want that has nothing to do with what we are debating here.

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

Is what this subthread is about.

Perhaps you should read what the people you are replying to are commenting on. Then you’ll understand the context.

I am reading it and I am replying to it. Perhaps you should let people themselves comment rather than pretend you are the judge.

I clarified the context because you decided to declare what the context was. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that. The advice about pretending to be the judge of the context seems like something you might have wanted to consider for yourself.

If you’re replying to the comment I quoted, then my points clearly stand. Language is not the limit of anyone’s world unless they decide to limit themselves that way.

And I repeat that you continue to miss the point of philosophy and are confusing means of expression with means of claiming. It has nothing to do with whether language is the limit of anyone's world we are talking about philosophy here that's the context that's what I was responding to before you started this useless diatribe. Have a great Saturday.

You’re going to pretend that this thread of the conversation doesn’t stem from that statement when it is plain to see?

Magnificent philosophy.

> "The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

there are many languages and each languages has many medium. There is no limit to communication. In fact we probably don't even speak the same native language, yet here we are communicating with each other.

Perhaps that is just wrong.

Another thing about some form of linguistic analysis being the final form of philosophy is that another form of linguistic analysis, that of Wittgenstein, predates Postmodernism by 50 years.

In addition that Existentialism is after Wittgenstein's take on a analysis. Existentialism attempts to answer the questions that we care about such as how we live our lives and our own values.

Existential philosophy is also, in part, very readable opposed to the great difficulty of reading Postmodernism.