DJB: “So explain how you can

DJB:
“So explain how you can say the above without being ‘non-sensical’. Why bother quoting Marx now you’ve proved that all philosophical theories are non-sensical? Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.”
Easy — as I pointed out, non-sensical sentences are those that are incapable of expressing a sense, no matter what we try to do with them — that is, they are incapable of being true, and they are incapable of being false. But, there are many different types of non-sensical sentences, which aren’t the least bit philosophical or metaphysical. For example, rules. Rules can’t be true and they can’t be false — since they are imperatives. They can only be practical, or otherwise, useful or not, obeyed or abrogated.
Now, my sentences are elucidatory rules; they are aimed at explaining where traditional philosophy goes astray. An analogy might help. Let us suppose that a certain individual is a novice at chess, and does not really grasp the rules. Let us further suppose that I try to explain where he/she is going wrong. I will say things like this “This is the queen and she moves like this”. This can’t be false, for if it were, it would not be a rule about the queen in chess, but about a figment of my own imagination. And if it can’t be false, it can’t be true either — since I am expressing a rule. Suppose I then go on to say “No, the bishop does not move like that, it’s an important piece that moves diagonally, like this”. These sentences look like they are in the indicative mood, but their role tells us they are imperatives.
Now, my comments about metaphysics are like this; they show where traditional philosophers have gone wrong by reminding them/us how we ordinarily use language — i.e., what it’s rules are.
And this follows Marx’s advice (in the German ideology):
“The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.”
And when we do that, we can see philosophical theses for what they are: self-important, distorted and empty strings of words.
“Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.”
I think sectarian remarks like that are out of place, don’t you?
Anyway, Leninists almost en masse agree with you (and give me a hard time for arguing this way). They also think that philosophy is important and can add to our knowledge.
“I’ve read the article by the way, there’s a simple equivocation error in the middle of your argument. Can you spot it?”
No, I don’t think there is — unless, of course, you can show otherwise.