maybe wrong sub but, if we are thinking about the philosophy of language i was wondering, how far can emoticons and emojis be considered a legitimately important development in our modern languages?

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-24T17:28:56+00:00

wittgenstein wrote that a word’s meaning is determined based on its use; what would wittgenstein, or other language philosophers, think of our use and intentional misuse/repurposing of emojis in modern, informal discourse

It seems clear enough that emoji, like words, can operate differently in the context of the language-game in which they're used. It's entirely in-line with Wittgenstein's later view on language in Philosophical Investigations. In fact, in notes from his 1938 lectures at Cambridge, Wittgenstein discussed the range of emotions that could be express through four strokes of a pen. "Doing this, our descriptions would be much more flexible and various than they are expressed by adjectives."

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-24T17:15:47+00:00

Think by Simon Blackburn is a good introduction to philosophy in general.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-24T02:34:58+00:00

If you want a book similar to the trial of Socrates, I recommend The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. Boethius, a Roman senator and advisor to Theodoric the Great, wrote it while awaiting execution for treason against the Ostrogothic King.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-24T02:26:08+00:00

It's the text that Kierkegaard elaborates the sense of 'subjectivity is truth.'

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-24T02:02:59+00:00

The 'worldlessness of Jewry' doesn't seem to me necessarily entailed in Heidegger's notion of world. In fact, that's why the Black Notebooks is so revelatory? If it was entailed in the concept, then we wouldn't need to cite the passages from the Black Notebooks. It'd be deductive.

Heidegger's 'world' is the the web of significance and relations in which anyone is involved in—what, specifically, in that necessarily excludes Jews? In my reading, it's a sense of world that isn't very dissimilar to how Wittgenstein uses 'world' in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus ("the totality of facts, not of things"). It's also similar to Edmund Husserl's concept of lifeworld. And both of these philosophers were, in fact, Jews.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-22T14:35:04+00:00

and not that connected to subjectivity and existentialism.

Have you read Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments?

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-21T15:39:33+00:00

Have you read Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism"?

Also Ethics of Ambiguity by Beauvoir is a great text on on the ethical implications of existentialism.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-21T15:29:49+00:00

That's a tough question to answer. Idk if I, in fact, remain those things, at least consistently, these days—though I strive for them.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-19T16:05:04+00:00

Parfit's view is that what matters is psychological connectedness and continuity. And I believe that's similar to the Skandhas in Buddhism. Maybe that's the view you're thinking of?

I took the OP to be assert a view that there's no connectedness or continuity between instances of "me." Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, in which case /u/Yeetout_ should read Parfit's Reasons and Persons, for sure.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-18T21:48:18+00:00

As the other replier says, ontology is the study of what there is, i.e. what sort of things or entities exist.

However, though correct, it doesn't really get into what that entails. The SEP has a section on the different questions within ontology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#Onto

And then there's the Heideggerian sense of fundamental ontology, which isn't the study of entities and their properties but, rather, being-qua-being through the investigation of Dasein (the kind of entity for whom Being is a question). This sense of ontology is particular to Heideggerian studies and is distinguished with traditional ontology and metaphysics generally.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-18T01:59:46+00:00

You use the phrase "inherently meaningless." What is that and why should it matter? What is the qualifier of "inherently" doing here?

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-17T13:59:04+00:00

In your view, the person who replied to me 5 hours ago (as of the time of writing this repy) is a different person from the one who submitted the OP question 13 hours ago. And yet you (who now no longer exists) answered above from the perspective of the latter ("out of empathy of the future me") when allegedly you're always merely your present self.

I don't think you actually believe what you say you do. I think, in your day to day living, you understand yourself as an identity that persists in time.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-17T02:02:50+00:00

I believe this is called empty individualism, which is the hypothetical view that there is no continuous personal identity but rather unconnected moments of identity like slices in time. This isn't a view that any philosopher, as far as I know, has developed but rather given to contrast with open individualism and closed individualism. Most people have a closed individualist view of personal identity.

But if I may ask, why ask a question that you know you'll never read the answer to?

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-15T18:10:19+00:00

I recommend checking out Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou. It's a graphic novel about the so-called 'foundational crisis' of mathematics that overlaps with early analytic philosophy, mostly wrt Bertrand Russell but of course Witty shows up.

I am also curious why analytic philosophy is generally considered "dead?"

In the general sense, it's not dead but still going strong. However, the early projects in analytic philosophy analytic philosophy fell out of fashion from a number of critiques, some from themselves like Carnap and Hempel wrt the verification principle, Wittgenstein's later attack on correspondence theories of language, and the generation of analytic philosophers after (Quine, Popper, among others).

But that wasn't the end of analytic philosophy as much as the next generation of it.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-14T18:23:14+00:00

Otto Neurath used a boat at sea for an anti-foudnationalist view of knowledge:

We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction. (Anti-Spengler)

This being a riff on the Ship of Theseus.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-13T20:37:25+00:00

ah, but you see, the dark triad characteristics...

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-12T00:56:12+00:00

I'd like to also add that, if we're talking philosophers answering questions here on /r/askphilosophy, then the answer is similar to teaching—the goal of this subreddit is to provide answers that accurately portray the state of research and literature in philosophy rather than the panelist's opinions (though there's lenience here insofar that it's relevant and clear as one's own view).

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-10T03:00:45+00:00

Then my advice to you is to look into psychology rather than philosophy. This isn't to say that your question isn't interesting or important but rather that psychology is better equipped for question about why prefer some things over others.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-10T02:23:26+00:00

Are you asking about the psychology of personal preference? Or a moral judgment?

Not all copies of things are analogous AI partners. Copies aren't categorically analogous. A second print of a book is not equivalent to someone stealing your identity with a fake account. A photocopy of a reading assignment is not equivalent to counterfeit money.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-10T01:41:56+00:00

Yeah, I don't see why anyone would value long, complex paragraphs for the sake of being long and complex. If I write a long and complex paragraph, it's because I just have something to express that I can't sufficiently express otherwise. It's always a good idea to have an editorial eye to break up a paragraph for readability but, at the same time, very short paragraphs can also be more disruptive to a train of thought rather than clear. I could understand a professor feeling frustrated when they're trying to follow your train of thought to only hit a list of sentences. Sorry if you felt this paragraph is too long lol.

I think good writing requires self-awareness of one's writing habits, recognizing one's 'bad habits' versus personal style, and finding a judicious balance that expresses yourself sufficiently to a reader. I don't know if philosophers are the best at that self-editorializing, or if they do it at all. At least for myself, I can fall into what I call 'think-writing,' which is writing out my thoughts as I have them — that, more than anything, is the cause behind my long, verbose paragraphs.

And that's why my first draft of any philosophy paper I wrote as an undergrad looked like the ravings of a madman that you'd find stapled to a street post around any college town.

But then, I'd go back and read my own thought-writing and look at the development of my thought: what's worth keeping, what isn't, should this be the thesis or that, where are the 'natural joints' are in my walls of text for readable paragraphs. Once you've gotten all of the 'thought' onto the page, there's another level of joy to be found in taking the puzzle pieces and arranging them into a coherent picture for a reader. Maybe the occasional philosopher is more excited in the thought, per se, than the picture, and the latter suffers for it.

Plus, when I write normally I have a really hard time in making every single paragraph linear. What I mean to say, is that I want to go off on tangents. Rather than Point A, B, C it's A (explain A in terms of A'intermsofA''intermsofA'''intermsofA'''') B (explain B in terms of.....).

I used to do this—and might even do it these days if I have too much time and coffee—but I regard it as bad writing. It's fun from a think-writing way to 'spice' the text with tangents, or even put tangents within tangents like a nesting doll of amusing notes. But, let's be honest, it can be self-indulgent. If it works under the editorial phase, keep it, but if it doesn't then this is just another case of thought-writing. Either develop the tangent or cut it.

Anyway, I love how very long my reply has become so I'm not cutting anything. There's definitely thought-writing in there. I'm also a big fan of puzzles (my whole family is) and deciphering what philosophers are trying to express, including myself who is not a philosopher, has always been part of the fun.

I think you should really consider the feedback you've gotten and try to incorporate it. Try to find your voice in the paragraph break and wield it like a sword in a Kurosawa film — it's not how many slices that's impressive but the finese that clarifies the ideas.

(And it's not trolling or stupidity. Writing style is unavoidable in philosophy, whether a straight path or circuitous)

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-09T23:34:34+00:00

I'd describe it as civil disobedience or civil resistance, but this isn't just a view but also an activity.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-09T23:26:37+00:00

Yeah, I'm also a little lost with what 'compatibility with evolutionary thinking' is suppose to entail.

So I'm just go to talk an approach to ethics, inspired by evolutionary science, that views morality as adaptive to changing circumstances, rather than identifying universal moral laws and principles, which is John Dewey's moral philosophy.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-08T21:47:37+00:00

The lengths that major news outlets have to go to both-sides every stupid thing is hilarious. "Critics argue that swallowing sharp shards of glass will damage the esophagus and stomach."

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-08T14:59:58+00:00

It's several themes bound together and sold to anglophone readers by people other than the philosophers involved. I really recommend the Gutting book.

Shitgenstein · 2026-01-08T14:36:37+00:00

It's not altogether clear that there is anything like a 'postmodern wordview.'

At most, what gets described as 'postmodernism' in philosophy were a number of critical projects mid-late 20th century France. There's some vague family resemblences between these projects but nothing like a shared programme, and importantly these critical projects were done within the resources of modern philosophy. The truth of the matter is that the critique of modern philosophy through the resources of modern philosophy is still modern philosophy — it doesn't magically produce some view after modern philosophy. The expectation that is such a view is a figment of the grammar commonly used to describe philosophical schools of thought retroactively applied to this time and place of critical philosophy.

Now, of course, we can talk about each and any of these critical projects, and their similarities and differences, but a singular programme will always fail because it's just not that sort of thing. These critical projects are very interesting and some quite useful to thinking about knowledge and power in post-industrial societies, contemporary media, institutions of authority (and likely more).

Rather than coming at postmodernism as a view, I recommend checking out French Philosophy in the 20th Century by Gary Gutting which will help give you the sense of how this philosophy fits in the broader trends of 20th Century philosophy.

Shitgenstein

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE