Language has been intimately tied to philosophy since Plato and his Cratylus searched for deep truths in the etymology of words. But the real disaster has been the last hundred years when so many philosophers sought solutions to (or dissolutions of) philosophical problems in language itself.
The main medium of philosophy is not its message.
Philosophy has been the history of philosophers (mis)reading their predecessors and rewriting similar arguments using new words for similar concepts.
Socrates played with words and the dangers were apparent, but it was many centuries before Leibniz insisted that philosophy requires an ideal language, one free from the ambiguities that allowed what Kant would call "word juggling." Russell and the early Wittgenstein were the last to attempt an ideal language - molecular sentences logically built up from verifiable atomic facts of sense data.
Leibniz and Russell both knew that major advances in knowledge are possible when abstract symbols are used to represent physical concepts. Symbols can be inserted in mathematical equations that express a theory analytically, and quantitative predictions become deducible and testable by experiment. Sadly, it was Russell who proved that even simple statements can contain logical paradoxes.
If language were free of ambiguity, the meaning of a statement we hear or read might be the same meaning intended by the speaker or writer.
Scientists of course use language to explain to their colleagues what they are doing, and at that point introduce the possibility of misunderstanding. But ordinary language, augmented with symbolic logic, with geometric diagrams, with mathematical equations that describe physical theories, and with computer models and simulations, can describe the knowledge that best explains how the world works, that is, science. This augmented language of science is the nearest thing we have to the ideal language of the philosophers.
When philosophers invent new terms or use existing terms in new ways, ambiguities commonly lead to misunderstanding. We hope to produce a short glossary of philosophical terms that describes how different philosophers have used important terms. And for some major concepts we have assembled a timeline of the words used over the centuries, dualisms, for example.
We quote, in their original language where feasible, the major thoughts of philosophers on our main topics, so you can see for yourself their "word juggling."
We too are guilty of adding new uses for old words, and even coining a word or two. We hope to be very clear about this new jargon. Think of it as putting new philosophical wine in the old bottles Cogito, Ergo, and Sum, and creating a new philosophical bottle, the Ergod.