Creating a language of philosophy?

[vindicated erudite]

I am interested in discovering how language can be modified to remove things such as cultural bias or misinterpretation in order to communicate complex ideas more effectively.   
 

One way of doing this is by creating new unambiguous standardised words that are meant to be used in domain specific areas. A benefit of this idea can be applied to academia where instead of spending half a paper explaining what you mean by certain terms you can instead cite a dictionary to explain what you mean by said term. Another benefit would be that you be able to explain concepts precisely and simply as you would need less words to explain a topic. This would be very usual in debates since working memory often limits the depth of debates. 

Would anyone please be able to cite any works that build upon this idea? 

[JosephKnecht]

13 minutes ago, vindicated erudite said:

I am interested in discovering how language can be modified to remove things such as cultural bias or misinterpretation in order to communicate complex ideas more effectively.   

How about removing language and directly transferring ideas from one mind to another?

All language contains ambiguity. Removing the language removes the ambiguity.  

[vindicated erudite]

4 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

How about removing language and directly transferring ideas from one mind to another?

All language contains ambiguity. Removing the language removes the ambiguity.  

Human technology is not capable of such a feat yet. I understand that language is not perfect however by going meta on language we can eliminate unnecessary resistance when communicating ideas. 

[Thought Art]

Sounds like nothing changes to me? It's still one term defined by another defined by another which require direct experience and explanation and burdens of proof etc.

Every term is defined already. 

If you simply use less words to explain a topic how would that not result in a poorer conceptual understanding?

Edited March 5, 2023 by Thought Art

[Gesundheit2]

Read up on postmodernism. The problem of self-reference is inescapable, hence words cannot have a concrete solid meaning.

[vindicated erudite]

12 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Sounds like nothing changes to me?

Imagine if we made up a language to discuss philosophy ,for example, the same way priests used to speak the bible in latin or the same way science uses mathematics. By creating a meta language separate from regular english ,for example, we can evolve that language to become more effective at exploring it’s field. You would not only be able to create new word definitions but adapt the grammar of the meta language to explain concepts more effectively. 
 

I don’t think I’m smart enough to explain what I’m trying to convey here but at the moment I’m calling it “linguistic constructivism”.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by vindicated erudite

[vindicated erudite]

12 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Read up on postmodernism. The problem of self-reference is inescapable, hence words cannot have a concrete solid meaning.

 

we might not be able to give words completely solid meaning but we can reduce margins of error significantly (until we come up with a solution). 

Edited March 5, 2023 by vindicated erudite

[Gesundheit2]

54 minutes ago, vindicated erudite said:

we might not be able to give words completely solid meaning but we can reduce margins of error significantly (until we come up with a solution). 

There aren't any errors within language. Essentially, language doesn't have inherent rules. We all know it intuitively. All linguistic errors are assumed in order to keep a standard language that is understandable by more people. Rules were meant originally for non-native speakers who are trying to learn a new language. Then it developed into its own science.

Anyway, what you're referring to is more a problem of (mis)communication, which is not a problem of language itself but rather a problem of the human mind and how it works. We don't understand what we don't understand until we understand it. That's the problem.

When you try to communicate something that you understand but the other person does not, there will likely be miscommunication, depending on how close or far that person is from the understanding you're referring to, and on your ability to make it as close to them as possible.

But no amount of definitions or clearly defined sets of terms will bring anyone closer to understanding something that they don't have a frame of reference to. They need to have had at least one glimpse of what you're trying to communicate or something close/similar to it. That's how learning/understanding occurs.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Gesundheit2

[Gesundheit2]

However, what I said above doesn't apply to debates, as they are rarely focused on understanding. Most debates are actually focused on the opposite of understanding, and the debaters will deliberately try to misunderstand what you're saying because they're trying to preserve their biases. No debater will be happy about narrowing down the meaning of words or using a clear concise dictionary, as fluidity of meaning is their main technique to mislead, distract, and win the debate.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Gesundheit2