I CAN assail language using language, reason using reason, and math using math. Language isn't a sword and reason isn't a stone. Philosophers have spent eternity using reason to attack one anothers' rational proofs. Geometers have spent an eternity using geometry to assail one anothers' mathematical proofs. As you point out at the bottom of your post, there isn't so clean a distinction between math, logic, and language. Each employs the other. So where is truth amidst all these interlocking cognitive systems? Truth may be what we think or what we mean, but it's not what we have.
You cannot use a combination of words to attack the very system from which the combination of words is derived.
My theory is that 'existence exists' is the single unutterable truth.
philosophers should treat philosophy as ineffable and cease the attractive yet retarded polemical nightmare that follows those such as Nietzche, Mao or Hitler.
I see it as conclusive that philosophy is never going to achieve truth, only lies and war - whether that war be as the battles engaged in on this philosophy forum, the mass oppression by any means neccessary of nations, or general war between cultures. So I put it to you that philosophy should remain ineffable and that philosophers should leave their desks and attend to real creation, not the linguistic farting about that we people seem to have spent thousands of years in awe of.
It's not so much about "proof of whether or not language is tied to reality". It's more that it's pretty self evident that language corresponds to human cognitive and communicative needs and capacities; and therefore language is rooted in human assumptions of truth, not ACTUAL truth (whatever that is).
As you say, language sort of assumes the existence of a reality, insofar as it requires that two interlocutors be somewhat on the same page when they're talking. In other words, for a language to have mutual intelligibility, any two interlocutors need to share the referential and conceptual content of language for it to work at all.
But that doesn't mean that they're right, or that their ideas partake of some objective truth. I mean can't we be wrong?
That you have just uttered. And how do you know?
How do you POSSIBLY put Nietzsche in the same sentence as Hitler? Hitler was one of the few who actually thought they had something in common -- but Nietzsche wouldn't have thought so.
I think you and I may be on a similar page regarding the ineffability of philosophy. But at least in my case I think it's not because there are ineffable truths, but rather because philosophy as a human project is a construct born out of language and human psychology. And for as long as we have psychology and language, we will philosophize.
what on earth are you doing here?
It seems like my point that there are ineffable truths is compatible with your idea that philosophy is born of language/psychology and like maths will never connect with reality. I think it might be worth noting that philosophy will to utilize the linguistic tools it is presented with, when in fact the philosophy we really need is found in breaking down the ineffable barrier between us and the reality we exist among.
However what is felt as a burning sensation could actually be extreme cold. The human mind is fatally subjective when it comes to truth.
As long as we agree that the truth is subjective