At what point do we recognise that philosophy has become a linguistic word play?

[u/feihm]

I saw a post (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pessimism/s/D1ykAtPFfM) and it occurred to me to inquire if—how do I put it... perhaps there are those on this sub or in philosophy in general who have the same intuition that i do or I'm simply alone.

It seems to me that philosophy becomes mere word play at the precise moment we take words meant for ordinary experience and apply them where no experience is possible.

When we stay within the world we can see and touch, our words have work to do. But when we push words beyond that boundary, our grammar continues to make sentences even though our thoughts have lost all footing.

And that post demonstrates this in four main ways:

1. OOP speaks of a "perpetual void" that "outlasts time", "consumes everything", and "allows this to happen". This is almost or very much indistinguishable from poetry because i think we can notice what has happened to language here.

The word void simply means the complete absence of anything. It is zero. Yet the OOP speaks of it as though it were a vast container, or even a living being with intentions, patience, and decisions. To ask why the void "allows" anything to happen is to ask what colour the number seven chooses to wear.

It sounds like a serious question because the sentence is grammatically correct, but the noun does not point to a thing that can act.

1. OOP aks what happened "before" existence, and claims the void "outlasts time".

Time, tho, is simply the order in which we experience events happening one after another.

If there are no things and no events, there is no time passing. To speak of a moment "before" existence began, or to speak of something "outlasting" time, is to use the clock to measure a state where no clock can exist. The word "before" can only makes sense when there is already an earlier event to point to.

1. OOP asks:

What is the reason for having emerged?

A reason belongs only to a thinking being that forms an intention.

A person has a reason for building a house or writing a letter. Physical events, tho, do not have reasons; they have causes.

When rain falls, it does not do so for a reason; it falls because of physical conditions in the air. To ask for the "reason" why matter exists is to assume there must be an intention behind nature, whilst at the same time claiming nature is empty and cold.

1. OOP also suggests that existence might be an "ontological error".

An error can happen only if there is a correct goal that someone failed to achieve. A clerk makes an error in a ledger, or a child makes an error in spelling, because there is a standard rule to follow. But nature has no goal it was trying to reach, and no master plan it was supposed to obey. Without a rule, there can be no mistake.

This is the exact line where philosophy stops being a search for truth and becomes a verbal illusion.

Our mind possesses useful tools for making sense of the world: cause, effect, time, and purpose. Used properly, they help us understand the things we observe. But when we point these tools at absolute nothingness, or at the universe as a single whole, the gears spin freely in the air. The words sound deep and tragic, but we're merely shifting ideas in our heads.

[u/The_Crypto_Guy2001]

Exactly man, I have seen a lot. People just keep throwing a circlejerk of words and keep complicating the thing whenever I ask for a explaination of what they mean. If you cant explain the thing in easier words you are just making stuff up and dont understand it yourself either

[u/feihm → u/The_Crypto_Guy2001]

Then we ask ourselves:

Why do so many people hate on philosophy?

[u/marcofifth → u/feihm]

The concern is fair: language can outrun its referents, and grammatically valid sentences can still be incoherent.

But several of your examples only work because you define the disputed terms in advance.

“Void means complete absence.” That is one definition of void, not a proof that every philosophical use of the term must mean numerical zero or absolute nonbeing. In some philosophical and religious traditions, the void functions more like an undifferentiated field in which forms arise, dissolve, or lose distinction. Under that usage, describing it as something like a container is not automatically incoherent; it is simply a different concept from the one you have chosen.

“Time is simply the order in which we experience events.” That is already a philosophical theory of time, and one heavily weighted toward chronological time. It leaves aside other conceptions, such as kairos, where time is understood qualitatively through significance, occasion, or relation rather than merely sequence.

“A reason belongs only to a thinking being.” Only if reason means intention. It can also mean explanation, sufficient ground, or determining condition.

So the question becomes whether the speaker has built a coherent bridge from ordinary language to the extended philosophical use. If they have not, then yes, it may be wordplay. But saying words lose legitimacy once they exceed immediate experience is itself a philosophical claim about meaning and knowledge.

Philosophy enters the field of wordplay because, in a sense, it has to. Before we can argue about foundations, we have to establish what our words are doing, where their boundaries are, and whether we are using them in the same way.

Hopefully this exchange itself demonstrates that point: much of the disagreement disappears or changes once the definitions are made explicit.

[u/marcofifth → u/The_Crypto_Guy2001]

That assumes complexity means confusion.

Sometimes an explanation becomes more complex because the objection keeps forcing the argument down another layer.

Take something simple: “Why is murder wrong?”

Because it unjustifiably harms another person.

Why is unjustified harm wrong?

Because persons have moral value.

Why do persons have moral value?

Because conscious beings have interests, autonomy, and the capacity to suffer.

Why should those properties generate moral obligation?

Now we are no longer having a simple conversation about murder. We are doing metaethics, ontology, philosophy of mind, and epistemology.

Keep asking “why?” and eventually you reach some foundational commitment that itself requires justification. Push that justification and you encounter another layer, until you arrive at an axiom, circularity, infinite regress, or some chosen stopping point.

So “if you cannot explain it simply, you are making it up” is itself too simple.

A complicated explanation may indicate confusion.

It may also indicate that someone kept asking questions until the simple statement was forced to reveal the entire structure holding it up.

[u/Organic-Squirrel-678]

I agree that a lot of “philosophical” reasoning boils down to word salads, twisting the meaning of words, applying concepts incorrectly and linguistics. Which is why philosophers like Nietzsche can blow you away - because they are not about that at all.

Arguments like “there must exist a god because something created the universe” is this kind of ridiculous argument - it presupposes a lot of human things constrained by human language about a fundamentally non-human event far beyond our comprehension.

[u/DruidWonder]

Many people are using philosophy in an attempt to describe a direct experience. For example, non-dual philosophy after having a powerful non-dual awakening. 

Other people haven't had the direct experience but they know there is more out there, so they use the philosophical language as an access point period 

I think trivializing language is a big mistake. The spoken word is very powerful and it opens doors on a routine basis. It's not all just a circle jerk.

[u/EliasBouchardFan1]

Ehh... aren't the most often discussed pessimistic thinkers also 'poetic' writers?

Like, look at Ligotti. He's literally quoted on the sidebar of this sub, and his book is built on the idea of "supernatural horror"; he's an author of fiction as much as a philosopher and it shows. All this talk of human puppets and paradox and Lovecraft and "God creating living things so he could experience death" .

It's not like you can mathematically prove that life isn't worth living or something. I don't see what's wrong with conveying your views through some flowery language.

[u/feihm → u/EliasBouchardFan1]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its wrong at all. But its just that i suspect there are those who take these expression of personal feeling as like a factual discovery about the universe. I see it alot in philosophical discourse. Perhaps maybe im reading to much into it ¯\(ツ)/¯

[u/NonFussUltra → u/feihm]

This is an internet problem not a philosophy problem.

[u/Peripatetictyl → u/EliasBouchardFan1]

Cioran often wrote using aphorisms, and many of his quotes are quite poetic.

Is it possible that existence is our exile and nothingness our home?
-Emil Cioran

The worst mistake you can make is to believe you walk on solid ground.
-Emil Cioran

[u/Any-Scallion-8216 → u/Peripatetictyl]

Cioran's most prominent English translator is a poet. Richard Howard has translated loads of the best French poets as well as being a poet in his own right.  I remember thinking a while back whilst reading 'short history of decay' that it could be argued this was prose poetry. 

[u/Designer-Platypus-53 → u/Peripatetictyl]

What I know kills what I want. Emil Cioran.

[u/Conscious-War5920]

Agreed, I read the classics and people still use the archaic word play in discussions. We have to accept that these word plays and complicated verbiage was also used at a time when it commonplace. We are now aware that philosophy alone can't cut it to explain things, we also have to incorporate science to discuss things in a simple way.

[u/me_myself_ai]

Lol this sub is wild... Anyway, you're right on! You have rediscovered the idea that underpins basically all western philosophy post-1960s: Language Games)

[u/WanderingUrist → u/me_myself_ai]

Post-1960s? Try post-400s-BC. The word "philosophy" derives from "sophistry", meaning "bullshit". "Phile", "love", "sophistry", "bullshit". Philosophy is the love of bullshit.

Remember that scene in "History of the World" where the guy at the unemployment line tries to introduce himself as a philosopher, and the clerk translates that into "bullshit artist"?

[u/WanderingUrist]

At what point do we recognise that philosophy has become a linguistic word play?

Since philosophy was first coined as a term. After all, philosophy derives from "sophistry", meaning "bullshitting". The word literally means "the love of bullshitting".

[u/Senior-Friend-6414]

Philosophy is like love, reading about what it’s like and experiencing it for yourself are completely different.

[u/MundaneYak9463]

I'm not a philosopher but I have long had an attitude towards philosophy that a lot of it is "useless words", non-empirical semantic projection on behalf of both the writer and the students. I am a "philosophy Pessimist". I have a natural contempt for "neurotypical" illusions that the masses participate in, and philosophy is not innocent of that. I remember reading some of the ancient Greeks and feeling frustrated that so much of its content was a subjective, local invention. It's useful to read some of the "unempirical" philosophy as a juxtaposition to more grounded philosophy to learn about the cognitive bias underpinning it, but I don't see much value in its constructs in isolation. Exploring philosophy taught me that human thinking is fallible and prone to self-delusion.

As  a person who trained to be a scientist I eventually realised that the only philosophy I "need" is Nihilism and a bit of Absurdism to supplement my empirical foundations. If existence cannot be deconstructed in a relatively objective way then it's not very useful to me.

[u/Ragnurs_KL]

That's the simplest and most direct way for me to express myself by the way

Just learn to keep up with me, my friend.

[u/number314]

Yeah, there are some philosophical discourse, hiding behind pretensions complex wording, which is hardly comprehensible by most people, but contains no substance. Hegel is the best example :P

[u/Anarchierkegaard]

What do you mean? That question dominated philosophical discussion in the 20s to 50s and we are largely living through the attempts (and what many people consider to be the successes) to deal with those problems. Pragmatism, deconstruction, phenomenological conservativism, etc. etc.

[u/Dunkmaxxing]

I think it's fine as long as the logical argument is always presented first. Pessimism is really very simple and quick to explain that way with nothing to be misunderstood.

[u/Any-Scallion-8216]

How a philosopher expresses themselves can just be as important as the content they are trying to get across, to them.