I have long assumed that many of our polarized disagreements on The Philosophy Forum are due to the "fact" that the common language of TPF, English, is essentially Materialistic (concrete & deterministic) and Metaphorical*1 (as-if), while the language of Science is supposed be factual : examining things as they really are (as-is) --- whatever that is. So, one party is talking about metaphysics (e.g. Mind) while the other is thinking about physics (Brain). Hence, some metaphysical (absolute) Materialists think they are making scientific (empirical) statements on a philosophical (theoretical*2) forum.
As far as I know, the only non-metaphorical language is Mathematics (abstract Logic). But when translated into colloquial forum posts, the logic of science becomes muddied with metaphors, which can be variously interpreted. The ambiguity of Quantum indeterminacy, may be why physicist Richard Feynman concluded, "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", and is mis-quoted advising his students to "shut-up and calculate". Einstein was also skeptical of probabilistic Quantum math, because it "made no firm predictions".
I know very little about the "Linguistic Turn"*3 in philosophy, but I suppose it developed due to the modern polarization of philosophical investigation, that followed the Enlightenment Period, with its rejection of religious authority. Hence today, the meaning of each word is debatable. The same dualistic --- black vs white ; right vs wrong ; material vs mental --- division in philosophy is also apparent in modern Party Politics. That's why I sometimes say that a thread has been "politicized" instead of "philosophized". The presumption here is that Philosophy should seek unity of belief --- to get closer to Truth --- instead of arguing for doctrine A against dogma B.
Typically, the polar beliefs in this forum seem to boil down to Materialism (empirical facts) vs Idealism (general principles). So, many of the recurring threads, such as the nature of Consciousness, eventually devolve into name-calling doctrinal debates instead of sharing plausible opinions. In my opinion FWIW, a pragmatic worldview will treat the external world as-if it is purely Materialistic. But when we begin to talk about Ideas & Meanings & Principles & Values*5, we are faced with the necessity for Idealism, as a practical way to understand the features of reality that have no material properties.
On this forum, since our language is mostly Metaphorical*6, we need to keep in mind that our opinions & beliefs cannot be expressed empirically or factually. So our metaphors should be taken with a grain of salt, and healthy skepticism, and presented with a dose of humility. My personal worldview is based on some empirical scientific "facts", but the most important aspects (to me) are based on non-empirical speculation. So I can't be too cocky in my assertions.
Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language?
*1. "Yes, language is materialistic in that it is a material system that is embedded in social and political economic structures."
"Yes, some linguistic theories suggest that all language is metaphorical. This is because words are not the thing itself, but rather a way to point to it."
___Google AI overview
*2. "A philosophical theory or philosophical position is a view that attempts to explain or account for a particular problem in philosophy. The use of the term "theory" is a statement of colloquial English and not a technical term." ___Wikipedia
Note --- Most of our forum assertions are Hypothetical, not formally Theoretical or Doctrinal, and neither True nor False, but expressions of provisional belief.
*3. "The term ‘the linguistic turn’ refers to a radical reconception of the nature of philosophy and its methods, according to which philosophy is neither an empirical science nor a supraempirical enquiry into the essential features of reality; instead, it is an a priori conceptual discipline which aims to elucidate the complex interrelationships among philosophically relevant concepts, as embodied in established linguistic usage, and by doing so dispel conceptual confusions and solve philosophical problems."
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... c-turn/v-1
Note --- Can Philosophical Principles be classified as "supra-empirical"*4?
*4. "Superempirical is an adjective that means something is experienced or is experiencing something beyond empirical means. It can also mean something is transcendental or transcendent." ___Google AI overview
Note --- Are philosophical Principles and scientific Laws, immanent facts or transcendent essences? Newton's First Law of Motion versus Aristotle's Prime Mover.
*5. Metaphors we live by :
" . . . a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980. The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings."
Quote ---"Ideas, concepts become substances that can be measured:"
Quote ---"Most of our indirect understanding involves understanding one kind of entity or experience in terms of another kind—that is, understanding via metaphor." ___Wikipedia
*6. "In Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state that human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. According to them, conceptual metaphor is a system of metaphor that lies behind much of everyday language and forms everyday conceptual system, including most abstract concepts."
http://www.academypublication.com/issue ... /08/25.pdf
More Notes ---
#A. Human languages are based on metaphors --- figures of speech that represent the concrete material world in mental abstractions, and then express those ideas as-if they are the thing referred to.
#B. Spoken & written Words are symbols that represent my ideas in familiar terms that you can relate to. Some symbols represent physical Objects ; other symbols represent metaphysical Concepts. Concrete objects are easier to grasp. Abstract subjective feelings & understandings tend to be ambiguous.
#C. A metaphor is an attempt to express what something is "like" to me, but without making the comparison obvious. So the recipient may think I'm talking about the Object instead of the Subject.
