I think Hume's distinction is "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas". I wish to know how other thinkers make this distinction.

Also, to which category "culture" belongs? I guess "the brain"?

Thanks!

I've been working on and off on a side project of mine - the Peretic language. It's a philosophical conlang focused on expressing factual truths about the world, the causes and effects of processes, and overall having a different way of thinking than any natural language. Some of its notable features include a lack of lexical nouns and an extensive evidential system. There's no goal behind this other than seeing what happens.

The conlang is far from finished, but today I made a sentence that showcases some of its basic features, so I decided it might be worth posting. I won't go into much detail other than explaining this example, just to get a feel for what Peretic is like. The sentence:

Artify ikanceko taj ecizolikicy zratikohetemo.

/ ˈar.ti.fə | iˈkan.t͜se.ko | taj | eˈt͜si.zo.liˌki.t͜sə | ˈzra.ti.ko.xeˌte.mo/

Translation or gloss? It's a bit more complicated than that. First, here's the actual information that this sentence conveys:

>I can directly feel that at the same time and place as speaking is happening, there is also a feeling of content or satisfaction present. Based on what I directly observed, and I don't think this observation or deduction has failed (though it might have), this is a side effect – and it being such is not a surprise – of a process of eating or consuming that I've seen with my own eyes. This process was characterized by the presence of something that I can best describe as trying to appear dangerous, and it being such is something I've seen with my own eyes as well. This characteristic of that consumption is the main point of me saying this sentence.

In other words: I feel nice because I ate some spicy food.

Peretic is an agglutinative language, with derivational morphology in forms of prefixes (not present here) and inflections as suffixes. Some suffixes that start with a vowel replace the last vowel of the word they get added on to.

Here is a word-by-word breakdown of this sentence. Warning: long read.

The first word we'll look at is the predicate: ikanceko /iˈkan.t͜se.ko/.

The base form of this word is "ikance", meaning "to feel nice, content, satisfied, full, comfortable, safe, etc." (the etymology is arbitrary since that's not the focus of this language, so I based it on existing languages - this one is from Japanese "いい感じ / ii kanji" 'good feeling').

As any predicate, this word states an objective truth about the world. However, we don't live in such a world where we can be sure of

I've heard that Ludwig Wittgenstein targets problems of language to explain problems within philosophy. I've tried to read his works but they seems quite ambiguous to me, can anyone try explain what his reasons were for this? Or do you know of any readings that discuss this?

Thank you!

There is this tendency in the english language to use terms that come from philosophy and have a definition which is internationally accepted across a lot of languages but having them mean something different.

Some examples would be: materialist, ideology, liberal, revolution, dialectics, idealist or even the difference between opinion and point of view.

The problem (tho I don't think it's that big of a deal) is that, when talking about philosophy, those terms are used in their international meaning which makes it harder to understand the content.

I have already seen 2001:ASO, A Clockwork Orange, Brazil, Matrix Trilogy, Truman Show, Gattaca, Dark City, stuff by David Cronenberg, Inception, Interstellar, Tenet, Free Guy, Wall E, A.I., Minority Report, Blade Runner etc.

I'm trying to look for sources -- maybe something Zizekian -- about the role of euphemisms in language. Does anyone have a good source on this topic?

| OPINIONS | THOUGHTS | IDEAS |

Also, add to this opinion, the idea that...

😳 There are probably 7.5 billion definitions of 'god'... 😳

Therefore any CX, Philosophical, Quantum or Metaphysics Theory that fails to define or use a recognisable and mutually agreed symbol of god, God, Source, Cosmic CX, Universal Mind etc, is also an unproductive use of hive minded academic and citizen science research time.

Efficient theories should also include primers...

Please could you provide recommendations for a mutual definition and symbol of 'god' within the comments?

...

🤔 My suggestion is to use a new idealism expression. One which incorporates the NrN/Vedantic symbol of the two simplified overlapping/touching CX circles...

💭 8

Eg. Ultimate MEGO / SACX Circle Separation = Ultimate SACX Evolution = CX Pooling/Merging = Ultimate Analytical Idealism (The orderly philosophy that 'God' would subscribe to?)

➕

QEM + SACX

#= M8X

♻️ The whole encompassing conscious 'energy/agency' of OUR...

...

#❇️ ...

##Self Discovery...

One objective of a NrN, is to research that 'unknowable' source. To discover, experience and relay the truth of what '❇️' has already learnt...

...

Of Course The Ultimate Truth is that...

###'❇️' has an agency of unknown origin.

...

#AGENCY

Evolutionary Progression Suggestions...

##NrNs you KNOW what you need to do...

😌🤔💞🫂

✅ 1. Merge into ❇️ M8X and study/learn/journal about OUR past and present subjectivity and meta-cognition.

✅ 2. Merge into ❇️ M8X and welcome the love to heal ourselves. Help to provide 'circular therapy'.

✅ 3. Mildly merge into ❇️ M8X, introspect or imagine the past, present or future and then share thoughts and ideas for our collective hive mind to discuss, process and action. Decentralised searchability is key.

✅ 4. Merge into ❇️ M8X and ? - Please provide suggestions within the comments below... Help to protect everybody from 'Megodom'.

✅ 5. Merge into ❇️ M8X and help to improve or create new Music, Art, Science and Technology A 'MAST' to collectively help aid/heal humanity and ultimately evolve the wisdom of ❇️

✅ 6. Merge into ❇️ M8X and return with increased empathy to heal/improve ourselves and also our collectively emotional and joyful reality!

✅ 7. Merge into ❇️ M8X and ? - Please provide suggestions within the comments below... Help to protect everybody from 'Megodom'.

...

🫂☯️⭕🧰♉♋💓🔮🤯💫🧲⚡�

This is mostly to do with LR.

I’m getting killed by questions that have answer choices such as “takes for granted that, if a condition coincided with the emergence of a certain phenomenon, it must have been causally responsible for the phenomenon.”, because they take so long for me to understand conceptually and to then retro-actively apply them to the given reasoning structure.

Moreover, any question where the stimulus is about some sort of abstract concept, such as values or motivations, eat up my brain with the complexity and density.

I feel that I am not alone in this struggle, and that this gap separates me from jumping into the next bracket of mastery. Does anyone have any recommendations on what to do to improve for these questions and be more “on top” of them? I feel rather defeated and lost whenever they show up.

Thx!

I’m a big fan of the major people that made this film possible, Ted Chiang, the author of the story from which this movie was adapted, Eric Heisserer, the writer that discovered Ted’s book and of course Denis Villeneuve, the director of the film. While this movie is pure science fiction, there are still many questions it raises that makes you ponder about the real world a lot.

The one that kept coming up for me was how time and language were intertwined and which perception came first? I’m also curious if others had philosophical/existential questions that arose while watching this film..what are your thoughts?

[Introduction]

How are you, fellow conlangers?

I'm Taishu. My hobbies are gaming and conworlding (languages and history).

Experience: About 6 years. Though, I've focused mainly on engineered conlangs.

* Can you read the IPA? -> Yes.

What unusual phonemes are you familiar with?

-> I'm ok with most of the pulmonic consonants, but have little practice with ejectives or clicks. Can't pronounce any of the clicks.

* Lingua Franca: English, Portuguese or Japanese.

I'm ok with voice clips or chats.

Do you intend to learn a language with new phonemes? -> Yes

* How often and how long do you intend to exchange conlangs? -> Between 30 mins to 2 hours per day. Around 3 times per week. May change.

Intended size of your exchange group: 4 people at most.

*[Conlang] : Cirtunese

What are the unique traits of your Conlang?

-> Cirtunese is a personal Conlang. It is my attempt at making an Oligosynthetic language. The romanisation hasn't been standardised yet, and the vocabulary focuses mostly on non-material things. It is possible to talk about physical objects, though, but the vocab for them is quite limited.

Consonants: / p pʰ t tʰ d k kʰ g m n f v θ ð s z t͡s d͡z l r ɾ j w χ ʁ ʔ /

Vowels: / a ʌ ɛ e i ɨ ɔ o u ɯ ɐ /

• Vowels may feature nasalisation
• Has no grammatical genders
• Morphological Typology: Oligosynthetic
• Morphosyntactic Alignment: Nominative-Accusative
• Declensions: Case System and Verb Conjugation
• Tonality: Pitch accent
• Its dedicated script is a alphasyllabary organised in blocks.
  • It has a font for Windows, but the spelling became a bit chaotic

Example sentences:

English: I write to you

Cirtunese: Ä haker eht ë -> Ä (I) haker (write) ert (to) ë (you)

IPA: /ja ha'kɛ:ɾ ʔɛχtɐ jɛ/

English: I tell you the name

Cirtunese: Haér z haca eht jë -> Haér (I tell) z (dir. obj. particle) haca (name) eht (to) jë (you)

IPA: /χa'ɛɾɐ̆ zɐ̆ χasa ʔɛχtɐ̆ jɛ/

[External Page]

I've been taking a computer science course which has really changed my mind philosophically but left me obsessed with specifically language. In my findings I stumbled across the idea of language games and found it made sense to me but after further thinking it seems that would kind of nullify, or at the very least severely hamstrings) the idea of universal understanding on a level desired for philosophy.

The thing is I know there's a counterpoint to this view, but I'm currently struggling to see it. It made me curious how commonplace the idea of language games are in the philosophical community and what the counterpoints are to people who disagree.

I privately teach philosophy to students whose second language is English, but whose analytic skills are very strong. Generally speaking, we are able to have great conversations and cover a lot of ground. But I find it quite difficult to find texts, where the writing is simple and clear enough for them to read. The primary text I use is Blackburn's 'Think'. Which covers introductory topics in a fairly simple way, but sometimes the language is too filled with (jargon aside) novel vocabulary, idioms and references that are just a bit too complex for the students.

Does anyone have any other recommendations for texts that would be suitable for someone with strong philosophical skills, but whose English is just a little shy of the level of language/writing style of 'Think'. I'd appreciate any recommendations on books, summaries of academic articles, or even academic articles written in relatively plain English.

I'm not formally trained in this and I feel like I'm probably making a lot of illogical jumps in my thinking so if someone could help me see some other possibilities I would love to hear them.

So I've been getting into computer programming and the whole thing is mind-blowing. I understand computers are not reality but for entertainment's sake I started thinking of my senses as components and realized even inside myself there must be some sort of protocol or language for them to communicate (is protocol and language the same???). And if I go down that route it makes me wonder if all experience is defined by the language being used to communicate it? Like if our ears can only hear certain frequencies perhaps those frequencies are its sonic lexicon and our aural experience will forever be defined by the limits of the instrument's ability to communicate and limited number of "sonic words" our brain understands. It seems experience is either dependent on language or at least the two are completely interdependent and either way impossible to separate?

As it is after thinking about these things it feels like there can be no other way lol So having said all that I would love to know if there's any potential validity to this idea by philosophers and if so how where can I read more? Who opposes this idea so I can read what they have to say?

Sorry for how unstructured my thoughts are. I know this isn't really well-structured at all and I hope to take a philosophy class in the future to help structure my questions and ideas more clearly.

In the 1993 film Wittgenstein, the following exchange occurs:

>Russell: Are you saying there are no philosophical problems?
Wittgenstein: There are... linguistic, mathematical, ethical, logistic and religious problems, but there are no genuine philosophical problems!
Russell: You're trivialising philosophy.
Wittgenstein: Philosophy is just a by-product of misunderstanding language! Why don't you realise that?

Of course this aligns with Wittgenstein's arguments, but is there a single quote from his writing that amounts to this idea?

ha! mi vi shosy hnú jí. Hello! I want to show you shosy.

Shosy is an aggluanative philosophical constructed language based on a set of simple rules for design: Limited vocabulary (120 basic words), Simple pronunciation, and simple script.

I don't intend this language to become anything major, just wanted to build it for fun, and to take notes in.

Linked ahead is the first draft of a simple web-page describing shosy, its phonotactics, phonology, writing (including script) and grammar, as well as a translation collumn.

The page is written in the interests of the layman, as I hope to use it to teach some of my friends, most of whom are not versed in linguistics at all. As such it's missing quite a few more complex notes that serious language learners might be sorry to not have. For that, I apologize.

Any feedback would be appreciated, both in terms of web-page design, and the language itself, and I will definitely keep feedback in mind with future revisions to the language and webpage.

The "Advanced Dictionary" segment is still W.I.P.

hanre!

Shosy Website

Last time we talked mostly about simples to wrap up our ideas about names. Since we thought that names should name simples.

We found that simples are simply paradigms in our language. Thing that seem as if they had to exist, and the disappearance of which would make our names non-sensical (ie - if the standard metre in Paris disappeared, the word metre would suddenly be in an odd position of not really doing anything as a means of representation).

So we talked of our colour-squares language game (names for monochromatic squares) and compared it to the colour-rectangles language game (names for rectangles with two colours). But we rejected the idea that the colour-squares language game is a more analyzed form of the colour-rectangles language game. It is, very simply, just another language game.

But what do we mean by language game? This is what the next part of the book will deal with.

Language Games

We’ve used the term “Language game” for quite a long time now, but we haven’t yet really tried to talk about what the essence of a language game (and hence language) is. We haven’t tried to put forward an idea of what the general form of propositions and language is.

But this is on purpose. Wittgenstein thinks that the language games have no one thing in common, and that they are just related in many different ways.

To try and get a better idea of this, we’ll look at what we call ‘games’ - board games, card games, ball games. Is there anything that’s common to them all? Wittgenstein says (rather famously) to ‘don’t think, but look!’. As we look at all the board games that we know of, then move to compare them with card games, then ball games many common features drop out, and others appear. We’ll see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and crises-crossing. These similarities are what we’ll call ‘family resemblances’.

--Boundaries--

Let us look at the concept of a “number”. We can say that the concept of number is defined as the logical sum of the individual interrelated sub-concepts : cardinal number, rational number, real numbers, etc. So the concept of a game could be the logical sum of interrelated sub-concepts much like this.

Here we’ve limited the concept of the number in boundaries. But how do we do that with games? What no longer counts as a game and what no longer does? There seems to be no

This question might be a little oriented towards the bilinguals if this sub, but I'll still ask. Quite often, I'll find myself interested i the works of a certain author, and want to read one of their books, but it just so happens that I don't speak the language that author wrote in. Now, given that I speak both English and French, I have a choice to make : should I buy the English, or the French version of this book? For example, say I want to read Plato's "The Republic". Originally written in ancient greek, I feel like I should read the version that's linguistically closest to greek : french. However, English is usually the clearer and easier to read of the two languages. How do y'all deal with this?

If it helps, ESV is my preferred English translation. But I'm specifically not looking just for what is the ESV equivalent of the Korean/Spanish translations. I'd like to understand the breadth of translation options.

Hello everybody hope u all doing good

My question is a short one.For philosophical books are they worth reading in my native language or should i stick to english,I personally like english but some books in my country are not all in english just translated versions remain and they be a lot more expensive,and i don't like e-books.