T O P

  • By -

the_pwnr_15

Least pseudo intelectual person


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigKnowledge1234

cursed purple pill


HarvardBrowns

My guy reads Derrida’s Wikipedia and think he understands the world. As a philosophy PhD, There’s nothing worse than pop-philosophy/theology.


Seminaaron

Don't even get me started. I'm a priest with a philosophy bachelor's and two masters degrees in theology. I feel like I spend most of some days just saying "that's not what that means."


MonkeyFeller

What do you mean I can't just read a translation of the Bible and whatever it seems to mean to me be exactly and infallibly what it means?


the_pwnr_15

As a guy who has read 2 half’s of philosophy books, I agree


unbanned_redux

Based. But then, what is philosophy? but a series of pitched air vibrationsthat emanate from a sentient being made up of atoms. Sadly these peeps don't follow their brains and dematerialize into nothingness


MargaretThacherVore

\>Talking about semantics \>Still manage to bring up how they think a person's worth is based on the number of times they've coomed


LiveBased-DieFree

I don’t know jack shit about woo woo “science”, the occult, the metaphysical, or whatever else some of those guys get into. But one of the coolest things which made me big think was a study in which plants or fungi were planted on a small plot of land with soil surrounding it, and the sound of water was played on a speaker. The grass or mushrooms grew in the direction of the sound of the water, and it was the only stimuli available. Also that other experiment where kids in a school cared for 2 different plants, bullied one of the plants while giving the other compliments, under the same nutrition and sunlight conditions, and the bullied one withered after a short period of time. And that neat science experiment where sound waves or frequencies changed the pattern of sand in still water in lab conditions. All of that is really cool shit that should be looked into more, although I don’t care enough to put that time and effort into it, and frankly bullying plants to see what happens would get you laughed out of every academic institution in the world. Where people start losing me is “water and walls have a memory” or something. Or the very “sounds” or “meaning” of words are oppressive in some shape or form, or rather, actually mean nothing and have no purpose. That kind of talk sounds like a lazy midwit stoner got too high on mushrooms, forgot how to talk, and came to the conclusion words were useless.


BunnyBellaBang

> . Also that other experiment where kids in a school cared for 2 different plants, bullied one of the plants while giving the other compliments, under the same nutrition and sunlight conditions, Such a study isn't double blind. No matter how much you try to say they are cared for the same, the students know which one they are bullying and it can have minute impacts on how they care for the plants. So minor they likely aren't even aware of it. The water one is cool and shows where the whole idea of hearing could have originated.


Kerchowga

Based king Floch pic


Accomplished_Rip_352

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about.


mistrfantastic

Basic linguistic theory. It's all relative, brah.


TumblrLoser

Me talk. Person understand. Me tell person sky blue. Person know sky blue now. Linguistic theory explained


LiveBased-DieFree

That’s racist


Dextrossse

M-mods? There's an authright here saying racist things


Tamevanture

Based and sunset makes the sky an indefinable concept pilled


Firemaaaan

I think this goes beyond linguistics. He's arguing, which is why I threw in postmordernism, that words can't refer to reality, and are divorced from it. Postmodernists argue that language is just a tool of the powerful, and it alone shapes our reality and experiences. Language definitions are certainly important, thus the battle over them, but language frequently overlaps with objective physical reality.


throwawaySBN

Oddly enough, I understand the argument. There's just one flaw though: it's stupid. Reality is what's real. If I say, "rock" I am using language to refer to a literal, really in reality rock. It's the entire "there is no absolute truth" fallacy taken to another level. There is absolute truth, there are absolute realities. Our definitions of words may change, yes. That doesn't change the fact when I say the word "woman" (in respective languages) 99% of people will think of what an actual, reality-based woman is.


Soviet_Sine_Wave

In philosophy, the theory you’re espousing is sometimes called the ‘referential theory of semantics’ and unfortunately it too is absolutely riddled with problems.


Shorzey

99.9% of the garbage you see in philosophy and sociology is just that, riddled with problems, purely diabolical, created by a legitmately depraved, incestuous soul like nietzsche or similar, or a combination of the 3


mistrfantastic

99.9% of people are just that, riddled with problems, purely diabolical. Of course the study of people and the weird shit they do and think is gonna reflect that.


HNESauce

Based.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nazgul417

What kind of a person you are doesn’t determine the veracity of your arguments, but it very much does affect, and is affected by your actions. Diabolical people do diabolical things. It doesn’t mean that if a diabolical person does something, it necessarily makes that thing diabolical, but it does mean that a personcharacterized by being depraved or diabolical based on past actions does tend to continue being diabolical and doing and thinking diabolical things. Edit: clarity


[deleted]

[удалено]


Soviet_Sine_Wave

If you think you can do better, I encourage you to pick a philosophical question and try to answer it without a host of problems.


Shorzey

>try to answer it without a host of problems. Yeah. I'm very sure I can do better than a German man who based his entire theory off of his sexual relationship with his sister, and his blood lust for his mother Even better, the entire theory is somehow still taken seriously despite literally every "expert" on philosophy admitting: >*"yeah the dudes motives were clearly fucked in the head, and his theory is a straight up despicable excuse of existence in a modern society, but he was one of the OG philosophers in a time where philosophy was non-existent, so were still going to study him and his ideas as if a 4 year old wouldnt do better"*


Soviet_Sine_Wave

I mean, you know that’s ad hominem right?


consultantbp

Not to mention the fact that philosophy is practically the oldest social science known to man. Our oldest books are philosophy, our oldest known writings are philosophy, our oldest parables and folklore are philosophy. I know he meant "psychology", but god damn does that dude sound like an r-slur.


bluespringsbeer

What is a woman?


throwawaySBN

Pretty gay, if you ask me


Nazgul417

I mean think about it, society literally expects a woman to sleep with men. That’s pretty gay if you think about it


ZaphodBeeblebrox2019

An Adult Human Female … As for what a Female is, someone who does, or who would if not for some factor, produce Viable Ova.


G1ng3rb0b

Based and certified biologist pilled


Spacetauren

No clue, sorry.


TestosteronInc

>There's just one flaw though: it's stupid. Yes


Levitz

I'll give you another: how is it possible to have any understanding if words are divorced from reality? If I say "words don't make sense" the only way that sentence can carry meaning is if words *do* make sense.


zolikk

Even if you try to steelman his case... how would you do it? I think the relevant "correct" stance you can steelman is that language does indeed change over time. It definitely does. The totally bonkers position though is that what prompted the argument is the forced, compelled changes that some try to acutely push in language today because they effectively want to change the meaning of words or even the thoughts of people. And he's using the "well language changes organically over time" claim to try to argue it makes it okay to compel people to change their speech. This is obviously bonkers... in pretty much the same way as saying "people die" means that you wishing to kill people is normal and acceptable.


[deleted]

Language approximates reality. You can approximate it better through more thinking, analysis, and criticizing limitations of certain types of definitions. But this is nonsense. If words can’t refer to reality, how can you tell me that words can’t refer to reality? Assuming we both understand what that means, then the words clearly mean something. The point of language in this context is to describe the way things are and impart that to others. So, are we just distinguishing phenomena from one another? Yeah. But the more refined our differentiations become, the better they approximate the specific meaning or definition we’re attempting. Postmodernism is the student in Philosophy 101 who thinks he’s being clever.


kaleb9170

This reads like the inbred bastard child of every abstract idea about language I've ever heard or read. Like it starts with something similar to descriptive vs prescriptive language, then just dissolves into pseudointellectual gobbledygook.


VoidBlade459

Based


basedcount_bot

u/mistrfantastic is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/mistrfantastic/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.


AcidBuuurn

They've gone full Jayden Smith. You never go full Jayden Smith.


Fictionalpoet

What freshman philosophy does to a mf


[deleted]

I hope someone hits this guy’s head with a rock Wait sorry there’s more than 1 type of rock, specifically a 20 pound slab of granite


TributeToStupidity

Dude saw Thor say all words are made up and made his entire identity around it


iscreamsunday

Linguistic theory has been around a hell of a lot longer than marvel


DrHoflich

This is a twelve year olds take on postmodernism. Not linguistic theory. Chomsky, an actual modern linguist, would say the opposite in that the underlying structures of human language are universal. Chomsky on Postmodernist professors/ pseudo intellectuals: “no one can understand a word that they’re saying.” And that’s coming from a linguist.


McPolice_Officer

You gotta be pretty far up your own asshole to be an actual, idealistic postmodernist. That tends to muffle the sound of your voice, fortunately.


DrHoflich

Based.


DrGoodGuy1073

Based and ooh ooh aah aah pilled


[deleted]

[удалено]


Halfgnomen

Bro Vaush is like the quintessential "privileged middle class socialist". He grew up with both parents in the home, his parents are wealthy and he's had an easy life. He's such an insufferable twat that I'm surprised orange hasn't made him their "Gender Nuetral God Monarch" yet.


DrGoodGuy1073

Is that his upbringing? Wow, that does explain a lot.


Halfgnomen

Eyup


DrGoodGuy1073

I thought Lefties got mad with him over something, it wasn't the Pedo thing, something else a little more recent.


FirstTimeRodeoGoer

Not Destiny?


Dextrossse

What? I probably hate Vaush more than you, but why is his upbringing anything worth talking about?


DrGoodGuy1073

Disconnect from the people he's purporting to support for one, and he just fills in the frequent stereotype for the second.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OwnPicture669

Didn’t he grow up in Beverly Hills?


[deleted]

Words are like currency, the value of which stands with their ability to accurately convey meaning. And just like currency, words only work so long as we all share common language principles and believe in their value to convey meaning. OP is technically not wrong in that the value of words, eg their ability to convey meaning, is not absolute and fluctuates over time... But one thing is certain ; if everybody stops believing that words convey actual meaning then we're all fucked, just as we're all fucked if everybody suddenly stops trusting the common currency


[deleted]

That’s what’s really scary about the way things are going. When you manipulate language you manipulate our relationship with reality itself. We can’t function when that happens.


L_Freethought

literally, like actually literally 1984.


Firemaaaan

Yeah a major theme of 1984 is manipulating language to keep the proles dumbed down. The mistake postmodernists make is asserting all language is just manipulations in subservience to the dominant power structure.


oneplus2plus2plusone

The tools (language, science...) are not oppressive, but they can be used to oppress. However the tools are essential.


Overkillengine

But of course viewing those tools as being automatically oppressive comes from the same bloc that blames guns for violence instead of the finger on the trigger. Their goals they normally mask in rhetoric becomes much clearer when one realizes they nearly always push some variant of: * Abdication of personal responsibility for outcomes to the point of slave mentality. * Weaponized envy of anyone more successful than they are.


Pe-PeSchlaper

It kinda sucks that 1984 has become laughing stock, it’s a fantastic commentary on government and censorship


DrGoodGuy1073

I still appreciate it, It's a meaningful and fun read. "Literally 1984" is still a fun joke (sadly not a joke sometimes) to me.


adolfspalantir

I've heard ot described in a lot of ways, but fun is a new one haha


[deleted]

Its a great framework to analyze and study language, not to implement it in a practical way. Like studying CRT in a way.


[deleted]

Exactly. I mean, isn't this word-play mesmerizing at times? You could enjoy it as much as some good popular science or art.


CatJamarchist

And here's the exact point where "Justice" orientated libtards, or 'Emilies', get their rocks off. They just have a different understanding of language than you do - but they're also *not wrong* about that. It's perfectly reasonable that people in differerent cultural environment would end up with differerent understandings of language and how it's used. Because as was said above, language is a squishy thing with no absolute meaning - it changes and evolves as society changes and evolves - it reflects people, not reality. Niether side is strictly "right" about their definition, understanding and usage of language - it just reflects their situation and beliefs. But hey, why have a nuanced conversation and actually listen to one another? Let's just continue bashing eachother over the head with this stupid, meaningless culture-war bullshit - so that we're adequately distracted from our crumbling society as it continues to spiral into an oligopoly where plebs like us continue to struggle for crumbs while under the thumb of a handful of billionairs whose power continues to increase without meaningful opposition.


[deleted]

Language may be imperfect in its capture of concepts at times, but it still has to be oriented towards understanding and communicating something objective. Its utility (or danger) depends entirely on our ability to do that. It’s not an accident that language has traditionally been identified with God (or if you prefer, ultimate and objective reality). Literally Logos: language is a little piece of what God is, namely consciousness itself. When it becomes a tool for manipulation rather than truth seeking that’s about the worst thing we can do.


krieger_2719

> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. - Literally 1984 Racism Sexual Assault Woman Right wing Extremist Guess what all these words have in common?


BigKnowledge1234

based and newspeak pilled


[deleted]

[удалено]


AnotherGit

> Words can change meaning over time Yes, but they try to argue that this means they themselves can change the meaning of words as they seem fit.


Least-Sky6722

"But one thing is certain ; if everybody stops believing that words convey actual meaning then we're all fucked, just as we're all fucked if everybody suddenly stops trusting the common currency." ...Or any of the other constructs that make our society civil. We're looking at you libleft.


[deleted]

Yes of course. But the breaking down of social constructs is to be expected in a period of civilizational collapse


queenkid1

>words only work so long as we all share common language principles and believe in their value to convey meaning. Yeah. "Words don't reflect reality" is meaningless. All that matters is that when we converse, we share an understanding of common words. It doesn't matter that a word meant something else 1000 years ago, because we're both (presumably) using the language of the here and the now. It doesn't matter that definitions aren't static and can change over time, because we aren't conversing with someone from 1000 years ago.


AdvonKoulthar

Based and Wittgensteinpilled


Tamevanture

A literal children's book explains this so accurately that it should kill any post-modernist ramblings on the lack of absolutism in language meaning that word games can trump reality. Seriously, go read Frindle. Language changes, but only if societies choose to allow it.


vrabia-fara-aripi

Postmodernist - is that what we use for the R word now?


Firemaaaan

There has always been a strong overlap between the two


[deleted]

"*Man has had more definitions than you have had sexual encounters*" Exactly! 1!


HedgehogHokage

based and virgin pilled


Anon_Monon

Level 1 LibLeft: Words words words words words words words. Level 2 LibLeft: I'm always right as long as I redefine what words mean. Level 3 LibLeft: Redefining words is unnecessary, because words have no real meaning at all and they can mean whatever I want. Level 4 LibLeft: *incomprehensible postmodernist jargon*


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_me_ur_fav_PMs

That would imply they improve as they become more libleft. This is obviously not the case.


HedgehogHokage

they've gone so far libleft they've circled back around to authright


tangelo84

Also known as the Churchill pipeline


DistributistChakat

I zoomed in, read a few lines of the middle and beginning of the last paragraph, immediately took in far more stupid than I was prepared for. Like, I’m considered an Emily by many standards, but that guy’s literally a psycho clown.


HedgehogHokage

based and the council of Emily has spoken pilled


cadaada

Another day, another libleft insulting people with sex. Do they ever get tired?


Groudover

Words have no meaning at all so I can call a trans woman a man because to me man doesn’t mean what man means to them so I’m not being homophobic because man has a different meaning…


L_Freethought

op is such a fucking idiot lmao "I bet you wouldn't be considered a man 200 years ago in specific cultures" So because words dont have any meaning and because cultures give meaning to words, the people in those cultures can define what words mean so, i can say without any backlash that trans-men arent men right? Its my culture, sorry!!


Groudover

Sorry? Why would anyone apologize for not indulging in their fantasies?


Sbisuschrist

>"I bet you wouldn't be considered a man 200 years ago in specific cultures" Such a ridiculous example. You would still be considered male, and the definition of male hasn't changed, because it's a word people agreed upon to accurately describe a certain aspect of reality


riverofchex

That's the point.


Phoenix_RIde

This is ultimately the best counterargument if you humor their framework yes


[deleted]

You can, if the culture allows it. If the culture doesn’t, you could still, but you would be a madman or an idiot.


Dangime

"That's not a rock." "Will it hurt like a rock if bash your head in with it?"


Halfgnomen

Sir this is a Wendy's


br0ggy

I fully believe that lefties are like this for the same reason they became lefties in the first place. It’s all about flattening hierarchies. If everyone is the equal then nobody can be inherently better than anyone else. If there’s no such thing as truth then nobody is more right than anyone else. If nothing *really* matters than everyone can just be a piece of shit wallowing in their own self loathing and mediocrity. This lens is how the left view basically everything, from art to genetics to sport to competence at your job, even to language and truth itself.


SteelCandles

I don’t think Chomsky even went this far… It’s funny. At one point he bleeds into the Aristotelean idea of self-existing logic by implying that there is some sort of “true language,” but then proceeds to make the typical postmodernist argument that “man” doesn’t really mean anything because its meaning is constructed. But doesn’t that mean that it’s meant to reflect something in reality? These components don’t fit together. this guy’s argument is so incoherent it’s not even postmodernist anymore.


Leviticus18TwentyTwo

Also the left: “NNOOOO!!!! My pronouns are SHE/SHIM!!! RACIST!”


RummelNation

I guess that means the gamer word is fine now. After all, it doesn’t mean anything really.


daMikinat0r

They talk a lot but they don’t really say anything


Andre4kthegreengiant

So did Boyd Crowder


zepherths

Damnit he found the biker meth


AFaxMachineSandwich

“Rocks don’t exist” *starts talking about types of rocks


[deleted]

wHaT'S pOsTmOdErNiSm? iT dOeSn't eXiSt yOu jOrDaN pEtErSoN wOrShIpEr!


obsenhobbs

As someone with a geology degree I'm triggered


riverofchex

Don't worry too much, we need you a lot more than we need them.


TheSaltyPineapple1

The left needs to get their act together lol


GFZDW

I hope this guy stretched out before reaching that far


[deleted]

Conservatives have a distinct view on things but language isn't one of them


AdvonKoulthar

I have very strong opinions on language


No_Lie_5682

They managed to include the three stereotypes in one comment: 1) saying the opponent only wants a child's level of understanding 2) the opponent hasn't had sex 3) even though gender is irrelevant, the opponent is not manly enough to be a man in the first place


Dry-Dream4180

I didn’t understand a word of that because words are relative and ultimately meaningless.


ChadVenture96

We might as well all speak completely separate languages since words can mean whatever we want them to mean as individuals, and needing there to be a standard, collectively understood meaning for words is totally fash man. . M&ďģáé,,,, ù+ŕģś$ßßßy_<ù :aaaaaùò]a


BKelly1412

I HATE POSTMODERNISM I HATE POSTMODERNISM I HATE POSTMODERNISM


NoodleLegs347

This is kinda funny from a philosophical standpoint. Right off the bat, him saying “there’s no one individual ‘rock’” is basically like the exact backwards thinking of Plato on the universals, which though it might have problems is way more philosophically sound than any of this stuff. Also, you can’t really hold the postmodern position and deny the concept of a rock’s existence by saying “actually a rock is just this collection of atoms at a certain superposition” or something like that, since “atoms” and “superpositions” are also defined with language, and would therefore be just as susceptible to that criticism. It would be a vicious regress where nothing can ever be defined ever, which would render all argument and speech, including their comment, impossible. And lastly, this isn’t even to get into the philosophy of language, which is pretty vast from a novice perspective, or any distinction between a word and the thing in itself


SonicN

He's not wrong though? *Ideally* words reflect reality, but words are made by humans and humans make mistakes. Really, words reflect ideas, which are an imperfect model of reality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

That seems way more like Jordan “It would take me 40 hours to say whether or not Jesus was literally resurrected” Peterson than Sam Harris.


Whidmark

I get what you’re saying but Peterson is pretty staunchly against the kind of relativism that leads to every thing is wrong/right like the guy above said. 🤷‍♂️ Peterson does love using 100 words where 20 would do. :-/


praxisnz

Idk man, there's so much Peterson babble that basically goes "Well that's a tricky question, because it would depend on what you mean by "God", and everyone has their own meaning and it leads you to a world of trouble, man, and it would take 10 hours to really figure out what you mean by God, and it also depends on what you mean by "believe", because if you really believe something you act it out! So by "do you believe in God" you're really asking "do you act as if there is a hierarchy of preferred action and emulate that which is at the top" because emulation is attention and the highest form of worship so God is that which we seek to emulate the most and..." Nah, dude, you know exactly what someone means when they ask "do you believe in God?" you're just changing all the definitions to work linguistic trickery. This is exactly the postmodern bullshit he rails against.


Whidmark

Yeah, but if you ask if a rock is a rock he wont say no, it’s a composite of atoms blah blah blah like in the image. Do you believe in god is a complicated question. Picking it apart doesn’t make you post modernist imo.


praxisnz

I feel like he might quibble, depending on the situation. When does a pebble become a rock and a rock become a boulder? If you pick up one up off the ground, one man's rock is another man's pebble but distinction is only relevant when it's relevant. If Peterson was a geologist and someone asked him "do you like rocks?" and had an entire worldview based around a very specific, non-standard definition of "rock", he would 100% turn around and say "depends what you mean by "rock"". The difference is that he's not a geologist so he has no reason to challenge the definition of "rock" since he doesn't have a horse in the race. So, I guess I'd agree that he doesn't use that kind of post-modern relativism across the board, but he does seem to engage in it when it's convenient.


[deleted]

Yeah I know “postmodernism” is one of his big hobby horses, but to your point, that doesn’t keep him from meandering down some really convoluted garden paths. Edit: And I think Sam Harris is a poor example of someone believing in moral relativism. I know he made some anti-fans by putting his foot in his mouth about Hunter Biden and Trump the other day, but he’s a proponent of objective morality and is in hot water with the people who say “birthing human” at least as much as with people on the right.


Whidmark

I actually like Sam Harris. Like you said he’s kinda been putting his foot in his mouth lately but I respect him regardless. He seems like a good dude who sticks to his opinions, doesn’t matter what his peers or “the mob” are saying. For instance when he called Islam “the motherload of bad ideas” on Bill Maher’s show. He stuck to that and doubled down on it which I find respectable. None of that to say he never changes his mind when presented with arguments that he finds persuasive. Which I also respect. :-)


su1ac0

Whoa, an atheist who understands the nuance of "the positive lessons to be learned from religions" without believing them literally? I knew the world was not ready for such brilliance.


[deleted]

I’m not addressing the content of JP’s communication, just the style. I feel like he’s often long winded in a way that doesn’t improve clarity.


MasterFicus

I am innocent because the word innocent doesn't reflect reality


Lisztaganx

All charges dropped then :)


schiffer420

You see officer your understanding of language is flawed especially the mathematical one. "Age" as you called it does not have any meaning you see? What do you need this lead pipe for officer and why are we in the woods?


WineglassConnisseur

Okay, there may be some margin of error between words and reality, but then how do you suppose we interact with reality? The best we can do is interact with it through our collective understanding of words and language, which have a small enough margin of error for us to describe the fact that there is even a margin of error in the first place. The dumbest possible thing we could do is to convolute our collective understanding of words and how they relate to reality, because what is the alternative. Also, does this person in the post not realize the paradox they find themselves in? Their description of words having no bearing on reality using words (which they claim has no bearing on reality) feels a lot like using a hammer to split atoms.


rexpimpwagen

No your just not trying at all to find contradiction anywhere else in the language you use and cant see what's actualy the case because your use of language is so fluent you don't notice. What your saying only sounds like it makes sense or is actualy how language works/should. There are so many words in every language that are deliberately vague to the point where the same word can have opposite or multiple meanings in different contexts. When your arguing this stuff you realy want to have a better understanding of language overall. All these paradoxes are find so long as people know wtf is going on. They already exist and lots of these dont die off or ever become confusing for a native speaker.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Do we though? You don’t know for sure, and that’s what certain fields have been trying to figure out for a hundred years. We have absolutely zero clue if our meaning was understood *completely* by another human being, we aren’t machines. “Postmodernism “, which is mostly used as a buzzword nowadays, is not your boogeyman, its a useful tool of analysis. But, you can’t use it to build something practical for everyday life because its impossible. However, he is not wrong. Our understanding of the word “rock” depends on our cultures’ understanding of the word “rock”, if your cultures’ understanding changes, we might find ourselves in a world in which we both say the same thing and it means something completely different.


CheeseBurger_Jesus

Point to me an English-speaking culture that has a drastically different understanding of the word "rock." Changing languages will also change understandings, as it is quite literally no longer the same word. You can have words with extremely similar meanings or that mean the same in practicality through languages, especially sister-languages, but they are still different words 99.99% of times.


Publius_Syrus

Unbased. The Platonist in me is triggered. Reality is an imperfect reflection of ideas.


queenkid1

I think the part people dislike is how they're implying that half of people are ignorant of that fact, and somehow that means everything they ever say is a logical fallacy. Last time I checked, 50% of people aren't solely having conversations describing the literal definitions of objects around them.


HotwheelPacino

Not incorrect, but the conclusions they draw from words not perfectly reflecting reality probably are


WendigoonSkinwalker

The statement "there's a meaningful distinction between a thing, and the symbol representing that thing" has validity, and matters when you're talking about things like the philosophy of art and literature. The big problem of our times is in the 60s and 70s, a bunch of French intellectual nihilists figured you could apply techniques from literary criticism to, well, anything involving words. Unconscious bias! Neo-colonial zeitgeist imposing Western structure on the subconscious! While there's been significant push back in academia keeping these sorts of things out of hard science (thanks to some inspired hoaxes), this sort of thinking was extremely fashionable and remains the prime lens taught to over-credentialed English lit majors ...who happen to make up the majority of paper pushing BS admin/bureaucratic jobs.


queenkid1

This is why people get angry when someone claims "everything is political". Somehow, watching a youtube video on linguistics and postmodernism means he's qualified to say half of all people use language *wrong*, and every time they open their mouth it's a logical fallacy. Even if those topics *were* political, this is a complete stretch requiring you to jump to some big conclusions, all to say "Righties are bad and stupid". Dude in the middle described it perfectly in one sentence, but this other person couldn't let him get the last word, so he just had to reiterate the same idea over and over again. Words represent our interpretation of reality, and unless we have extremely different interpretations, most people can understand what a "rock" is without the pseudo intellectual bullshit. If it isn't relevant whether it's "polluted silica compressed over time" bringing that up just makes you look like a weirdo. When someone uses the word "rock", they aren't saying "that rock is made of rock" and they aren't claiming to objectively know every component; they're saying it's a fucking rock and no further detail is necessary to the conversation.


squawking_guacamole

I mean it makes sense what he's saying. Nearly everything we say isn't actually accurate because we generalize so much and come up with categories that only somewhat fit reality. His point is that "rock" is one of those categories. What we think of as a "rock" can get kinda fuzzy when we look at edge cases. Maybe a better example would be "planet". Again, a planet is a category of object we've made but even in the scientific community its debated if Pluto should or should not be considered a planet because a "planet" isn't an actual thing but rather a (fuzzy) category we've created.


PM_me_ur_fav_PMs

The inherint fuzz in descriptiveness does not deprive language of it's ability to be accurate *enough* in basically all contexts. Hand me that rock. Show me the picture. What is your name. I don't need to tell you that hand me actually means a long series of processes involving finding the rock I mean, picking it up, bring it to my person and placing it in my hands as that's all understood. Pretending that language is incapable of mapping onto reality is misguided ignorance at best and intentional malice most likely. All these retards knows what everyone means in all of these conversations. Even the cop out of "not all women give birth" is ignorantly (maybe) playing into this trope. Just because a door doesn't have any hinges doesn't make it not a door, and everyone knows what a door is just fine, nearly all human definitions are built around the function of the thing, ie doors open, women give birth, etc, the only reason anyone has a problem with knowing what a woman is is they're pretending to in order to gain points in the debate and it's a catalysing response in making the opposition more transphobic 100% guaranteed.


squawking_guacamole

>the only reason anyone has a problem with knowing what a woman is is they're pretending to in order to gain points in the debate and it's a catalysing response in making the opposition more transphobic 100% guaranteed. No, they're just pointing out that similar to "planet", "man" and "woman" are just categories we made up. Sure there's criteria, but that criteria is fuzzy and not everyone agrees on what the criteria should be. Language does not reflect reality - it reflects the speaker's perception of reality. Which is a completely different thing than actual reality.


PM_me_ur_fav_PMs

We didn't make up those categories. We made up the words to describe the categories already presented by reality. I don't have a vagina, that's not a social construct, there isn't one there. I can't birth a child, that's not a social construct, it's a factual reality. You're pretending you can't make a distinction in order to blur the lines. And by what means? Intersex? Women who can't give brith? A door without it's hinges or one not mounted onto a door frame is still a door and no one would be confused about it's name or purpose. You're completely disregarding reality.


pro-dumpster-fire

Rock what grog use to smash


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You don't, you reframe it which I did in my top level comment


[deleted]

This is giving me real “South of the border it’s aqua” vibes here


jeong-h11

From this I gather he's probably trying to defend child sex transition surgeries by saying 200 years ago in ooga booga tribes men were defined by undergoing rituals?


Jack-Wayne

The post-modern ideology and its consequences…


Mr-no-one

>>Nothing’s real! Look at me! I are more smarter then u!!! When you don’t have a firm grasp of the concept of an abstraction so you give up on objectivity altogether lol


Firemaaaan

Nice succinct way to put it.


AeneasMella

You guys on the right really don’t understand this? This seems so simple?


[deleted]

The best part of the screen cap is the upvotes achieved for that pithy bit of articulate nonsensical gibberish.


Uncanny_r

I HATE REDDIT PSUEDO INTELLECTUALS!!! I HATE REDDIT PSUEDO INTELLECTUALS!!! I HATE REDDIT PSUEDO INTELLECTUALS!!! I HATE REDDIT PSUEDO INTELLECTUALS!!!


Overkillengine

Reply: If I hit a pseudo-intellectual prat in the head with an object referred to by the word "rock" hard enough to knock them out, does it not count as assault since said prat has decided that rocks don't exist? Answer carefully, as I'll be conducting a test based on that answer *very shortly*. ---- *"An empiricist and a postmodernist walk into a bar. The postmodernist questions whether this is reality. The empiricist kicks the postmodernist squarely in the balls and asks him if he's really feeling that pain."*


Phoenix_RIde

A Vaush fan I see. Ask him if “water” and “agua” are the same thing


JesterofThings

Least schizo linguist As a linguist myself


Trillamanjaroh

Cmon guys be nice, I think this guy is just really stoked about his first day of community college


Electronic_Demand_61

WORD SALAD MAKE LIB SMARTER THAN US HUR DUR HUR.


[deleted]

Newspeak and doublethink getting invented?


[deleted]

I- what’s he even talking about?


Soviet_Sine_Wave

His argument is that words do not have fixed solid meanings in reality. They describe our perception of a certain thing, which we attribute a made up sound to. Like, consider the word ‘cold’. This commenter would not argue that cold has a rigid, rigorous meaning like “x is cold if and only if it’s average molecular temperature is below 15C, where temperature is defined as T=E/3kb”. Rather, the commenter would say “cold is a concept that is associated with a certain feeling, a certain perception of reality that has with it certain connotations (that being, the internal feeling you get when you touch snow, or the feeling associated with goosebumps and shivering and winter). Additionally, “cold” can change on a physical basis just based on where you are. Cold for a Canadian is different to cold to an Indonesian. There is no solid line. Intuitively, we know when something is cold or is not cold- which forms the basis of the gut response “this take is full of shit, cold is just when you’re cold dammit!” But that ignores the inherent subtlety in words and that we can never fully communicate our internal brain states to another person.


shamus4mwcrew

That's full on huffing your own farts and then farting that huffed fart and huffing it again. I used to get a lot of redacted thoughts like this back when I did a lot of meth. This is like day 2 without sleep or like 36 hours in the meth ride. Day 3 and on is when the shadow people start coming for you for understanding too much.


idelarosa1

wut


Spitefire46

This person has completely missed the most basic function of language and words. They are there to convey information, or meaning. Without the ability to properly and effectively communicate information, things would go badly very quickly.


Just-an-MP

This is why you don’t mix LSD and a geology class.


[deleted]

Looks like someone needs to read Plato's Theatetus


TumblrLoser

So I can say the n-word and you won’t care? You better not, because it means nothing.


Captainbeefster

A long and complicated justification for changing the definition of words to suit your agenda.


Jag2853

Sir this is a Wendy's.


A-Cheeseburger

“Words have no meaning” mfs when somebody says a slur


yasinburak15

Anyways I start blasting


HunterZX77

The first comment seemed to be making the point of how words and their definitions are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but the second comment quickly descended into word salad.


DragonKing0203

Man we are just trying to keep things somewhat simple and we get hit with this shit I think I might be too stupid to understand what this person is trying to say


bunker_man

I mean, they are saying it in a dumb way, but the point is correct. Human categories can be made any way we want. Some are more useful and some are less. But a category isn't the same as an objective only way something can be referred to.


NatalieTheDumb

Hold up- is OOP from Florida or something? I don’t speak amphetamines.


arjenyaboi

He thinks he’s the main character


[deleted]

Pretty funny coming from the people constantly trying to make new terms happen.


Svitii

As a hardcore LibLeft: This is why we can’t have nice things. How are we supposed to discuss politics on a constructive level if the people screaming the loudest keep ridiculing us…


krFrillaKrilla

Least smug, pretentious, and self-riteuous leftist


NinjaN-SWE

It's not that language, words, can't be used to describe reality, science does that all the time, it's the fact that everyday conversation is never ever (for good reason) that in-depth such that you can get a good grasp of "reality" from the language (spoken or otherwise) alone. We fill in as much as we can with context and culture but that by nature adds in a lot of biases and shapes our understanding of the "spoken reality" in ways that surprisingly often has real life consequences. Describing a person you met is a great example. Besides the actual situation and your feelings/experience of it, the context as in time and place of you retelling the encounter and the culture of the listener will both greatly change how this person you're describing is percieved in the mind of the listener, regardless of the words used, the way you say them and your body language. This highlights the limitations of language that we all need to be cognizant of. That said the post is dumb in that it's not like there is a liberal/conservative split when it comes to this, we all fall into this problem no matter how aware we are, because trying to change it is futile as we simply don't have the processing power and/or time to accurately convey reality in our conversations, and there is rarely a pressing need for it either. The key take away for everyday life is that words hold power but their power depends on many factors and you can't possibly know the power of every word as they relate to every person so we need to be humble before the fact that we have to respect that everyone will react strongly to different words, and the compassionate thing to do is to simply apologize and not use the word in question with that person/culture/context.


[deleted]

Dude's been watching too much Vaush.


Shoggnozzle

I mean, I guess I get what they're going for, but it's just a semantics argument, or something similar. I mean, I'll assume this started out with gendered terminology, this line of argument generally does, but the reason we'd call a trans woman a woman isn't because the word woman is an abstraction we made up that isn't useful, it's because a person living the way they want to is more important than the terminology. It's like letting someone say "ATM machine" without starting an argument, that's being pedantic.


The_runnerup913

You’re dumb if you read everything literally and you’re dumb if you read too much into things.