Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Joe_Fart t1_j7gaxyk wrote

Reply to comment by Prestigious_Sea7879 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 06, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

This reduction to words would work only if there was no other means of communication. But there is a something else with witch you can signify a sign. Paintings, music etc… To say that there is nothing but words is a very brave metaphysical statement. It is dismissing the fact that in order to have signified there is a need to have at least some connection with the object. Even if our senses are deceiving us or they are not perfect, we still base our words on something. The problem of saying that there are only words is its distaste for anthropocentrism.

1

Prestigious_Sea7879 t1_j7gddit wrote

My definition of "word" also includes paintings, music, etc. To the degree that they exist, any external object or perception is also words.

3

Joe_Fart t1_j7gg9ah wrote

I assume what are you trying to suggest is some version of Barkeley idelism. In this case, if there is no consciousness (disregarding God) the world cease to exist?

I agree that our self is indeed structured with a language, but it is more like the tool and not the thing itself. The same as our eye is recreating the outside world for us but it does not mean that only those pictures exists.

2

ephemerios t1_j7q3raf wrote

Right, but you haven't provided anything resembling an argument for both the definition and your overall metaphysical point.

2

hOprah_Winfree-carr t1_j7tpjk3 wrote

So all that exists are words because you've defined "word" to mean anything that exists. How does that help you to think about anything in a different or less confused way?

2

Big-Literature4233 t1_j7hp8oc wrote

Yes, I agree these ate all forms of communication, verbal of course and sign language, grail, yup Morse code.

1