Yes because we associate the sharp abrupt sounds in kiki to a sharp object because we use words like sharp and flat to describe sounds. That isn't "the shape of the sounds hold[ing] a meaning that is greater than the definition of the word itself?".

That's just recognizing there are different sounds.

That sounds like nonsense given you can attribute any meaning onto a word; it's just a symbol. It's one thing to say a language is beautiful or evocative but the idea that a sound can gain special meaning a word cannot seems silly.

I guess there isn't if you can't read so as far as you're concerned no.

Yes.

Sure but there's a difference between not liking it and judging it.

>You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.

You're entirely forgetting Relativity has been experimentally confirmed.

>But is it a science? I apologize but no.

It's okay. I accept your apology for your ignorance on what the scientific method is.

>Ok great explanation thanks.

A truth being hard to check and there not being a truth are not the same thing.

>I challenge you, how do we measure people's perspectives?

You ask. It isn't that complicated.

>Because identical twins exist and they don't end up as the same people despite the fact that their genetic and nurtured environment are the same.

That's absurd. Twins only have very similar environments not identical ones.

No I don't mean a belief.

>Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.

You only think that because you don't understand Relativity. Length, time's rate of passage, and the order of events is not an objective measurement if you measure from different frames of reference.

>If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.

What makes you think that?

Edit:

>You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.

That's silly. You just ask.

>Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus

There is no domain relevant to this conversation where simple logical calculus can verify everything. I also didn't ask for verification for everything or any one thing. I asked what the value is in speculating on things that cannot be verified.

Just because subjective truths can appear to contradict each other doesn't mean those truths aren't true. The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.

I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.

>There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.

People use axioms all the time in philosophy.

>stricter criteria than the average philosopher.

Perhaps the opposite. I don't consider subjective contradictions between perspectives to be the same as a paradox or untruth.

>It's fine to live it out, but I think you've really misunderstood the point of philosophical discussion if you think that there's no value in discussing ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.

I never said that. In my first comment I acknowledged that becoming a better thinker is through philosophical speculation is value speculation provides.

>Which is really ironic cause much of what Plato does is discuss ideas from a purely hypothetical perspective.

Hypothetical discussions and speculative discussions aren't the same thing. Allegories are perfectly capable of conveying verifiable truths.

>I think you misunderstand what it means to speculate an idea.

You're fixating on the word speculate unnecessarily. My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy.

>I'm well aware of special relativity

I'm not the one calling differences caused by separate frames of reference "variations over time"

>Variations of location, time, and relative velocity are immaterial to objective reality.

If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality. As you are no doubt aware General Relativity is necessary to correctly describe reality.

So you think the scientific method is the only way to verify truth?

I'm not talking about "variations over time". I'm talking about getting two different measurements depending on your frame of reference.

>what even are you saying, my dude?

I'm saying you should probably learn the conceptual basics of special relativity.

The physical universe itself changes length, position, casual order of events, and the rate of the passage of time depending on your frame of reference. Subjective truths are still true.

Except there is plenty of philosophy that can be applied and tested. It's incorrect to think speculation and unverifiability are inherent to philosophy. Philosophy originally included the investigation of the natural world.

It seems to me the only reason to separate speculative philosophy from the rest and gatekeep it as the only "true philosophy" is to retain the pretense of authority on things like metaphysics compared to physicists who are also capable of engaging in philosophy.

You think everything Plato said was purely speculation?

>It's all literally just speculating.

Philosophy might be all about speculating when you confine yourself to arguing with the natural sciences about metaphysics. For some of us at least philosophy is more than just unverifiable speculation and is something that should be lived and applied. Or at least the useful parts can be applied.

You can apply the scientific method to anything you can measure.

>Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.

Preposterous. You do not need to demonstrate direct causality to apply the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of investigation that can be applied to anything not a set of direct casual results.

Not every question in the physical sciences can be settled with airtight logic either. I'm not sure how that demonstrates the value of speculation on this.

>That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...

Nonsense. I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

If you can't verify or falsify you're just speculating. What's the point in pretending there's any philosophical value in baseless speculation beyond exercising your philosophical "muscles"?

Yeah I'm not the person who you replied to. Sorry I was just being facetious.