Guys I'm stuck on something, I can't figure something out and I'm obsessed about it. I will start by listing a couple of logical statements:
1. All words/ideas/concepts are the logical organization of other words/ideas/concepts.
2. Any attempt to think or talk about this any further is subject to the same regressive paradox. Even this. Even the original statement.
What the fuck. If you think about this enough you will be paralyzed.
define "Guys"
>>7444844
There is no answer. Words are just signs. And you can interpret signs because of your memories.
HEY KID!
>>7444859
Exactly. Fuck me. Silence. I have to be silent and paralyzed. I could ask you to define define, and so on. It all refers to other words. Even me saying it refers to other words. It's a self contained self referencing system used to describe and define all things.
What?
This is why the Tractatus is still important. It's a beautiful theory that at the very least gets you over these silly conundrums.
Wittgenstein and C. S. Peirce are your be friends, Opie.
>>7444861
But the problem I find is even that logical reconciliation, like all explanations, is rendered meaningless by the very problem. I don't want to be childish but this seems to apply to everything and I can't beat it. The only thing that can't be deconstructed is feelings and auto-affects.
>>7444865
doesn't it reference specific experiences you have?
you learn how people use language to go about the world, but your experience and habits are key. you don't really know the meaning of most words. you just know how you might use it. a lot of the time you're staring off into space experiencing all kinds of little things there are not yet any words for. that's primary. language is just a noisy gloss on your habits.
No I won't, because I'm not making up for my low cerebral horsepower with autism.
Read Philosophical Investigations, OP. I've rarely seen such a clear case of neoplastic philosophy.
If you prefer to go the autistic way you can also read Wittgenstein's early thoughts on "atomic facts."
>>7444865
now wait a gosh darn minute here. you're saying that the age old question repeated by a child, "why?" is capable of rendering you paralyzed? quit being a baby and allow regression to tail off into oblivion where it belongs. the words have their static meaning when YOU give it to them, not when they're defined by someone else, they may be based on someone else, but you make the rules for yourself in the end, the only thing that is paralyzing you in this instance is yourself. paradoxes are fun, i've gotten locked in a few, but they're just fun. i'm sure better men than i could go on and describe paradoxes as being indicative in human logic or language or reality or what the fuck ever, but that's just not as useful as just saying fuck it and breaking the cycle. or something.
>>7444876
I think that may be the solution. The system of words is a reference system which, to continue, must have begun in the first place. The first point of origination is the beginning reference point and I need to find that. The only problem I've found with this is that this itself is a mere concept that, again, and rather fatalistically, is rendered meaningless by the very process it is intended to defeat.
But perhaps the problem cannot be applied to anything because it is not a problem. If what you said is true, then meaning would precede meaninglessness, and a problem does not arise to be applied to your statement.
>>7444844
not worried about it. we're in the machine, we're of the machine. deal with it, faggot.
>>7444893
Of course some concepts refer to the words themselves, but that's not "fatal". Words are actually something nurturing that grow on a rich field, which are our experiences.
>>7444844
Whaaaa
>>7444893
I guess the real problem now is which precedes with. But I guess it's back to square one because:
In this instance, meanings of words derived through basic sensory experience cannot precede the meaninglessness of the words themselves.
Although sensory experience comes before language in human development and in evolution, the meaning and true-ness of that statement only exists after words and meaning have been applied to it, for baby's do not know of such a thing. So although experience precedes words, the point at which that can be applied as a true statement is preceded by the words that compile it. And meaninglessness again precedes that. fuck
>>7444907
eternal pain and suffering now
>>7444911
nigga, you decide. you have the ability to fucking decide on constants. use it, you ninny.
>>7444893
You really need to read some Lacan
>>7444911
A true statement is just something that you can verify via your senses.
>>7444911
no it doesn't dude
learning language is like learning to walk. "trueness" is something you come to grasp. like learning to have true footing, literally. it doesn't precede anything. and there's no criterion for trueness.
you're gonna keep reaching for something reason i don't know why.
>>7444922
because he likes being locked in a paradox when he clearly knows that a paradox is usually flawed reasoning in place and when looked at from the correct perspective, falls to pieces, he's playing with an engine in his head that only keeps whirring as long as he holds it in place mentally.
>>7444918
To me, going this way is going backwards because:
If we attempt to explain this, we will run into the same original problem.
>>7444930
YOU. not we.
>>7444927
I don't like being locked in a paradox I just find this very weird and I can't ignore it. But it is the only true solution, it's to be silent about it.
>>7444844
I'm not 100% sure at what you're getting at but it seems like you need your daily dose of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
>>7444934
I guess but, for me to even use your point I have to maintain that it is in fact true and to do that I need to once again prove it, ect, >>> run into the same issue logically.
>>7444939
I'm going to read it and figure this out
>>7444942
and yet here you are, operating admirably, using terms that require a completely different and obviously non-paralyzing type of reasoning that doesnt seem to have any effect on your ability to understand me and any of the other people on this thread. your "problem" is a non existent one, and when you learn that you're merely using it to entertain yourself, you'll stop wasting time and read that book that you've been avoiding.
besides, your paradox is based on two axioms that are as arbitrary as any other, which is why it's easy to allow one's mind to operate in that scheme, without directly influencing your main axioms. that paradox is an entertaining test run of logic for your brain.
>>7444957
i failed the test
>all words/ideas/concepts
>not an infinitely expanding set of rearranged information, through information net works and information feedback loops
>implying that communication is linear and not an information loop between several information agents, who are themselves information
>the recursive information of my face when
>>7444943
And one day you'll be a mature enough thinker to move on to Philosophical Investigations.
Derrida's essay Différance may be of interest to you. He wrestled with the same issue, and coined the term Différance to discuss what's happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance
There's a link to the actual essay at the bottom of the wiki.
