Against the shelf -- wasn't it our own continued repetition of using "water" (for obvious needs) that allowed the translation to take place?

And we understood this bit, in the translation, but did we get the whole meaning? I don't think so.

Puns and jokes are a good example here -- the meaning of a pun is so contextual that it's pretty hard to understand without context. And surely they had jokes about so common a word? We say "it's water under the bridge" to mean that the past no longer matters. Surely we didn't recover all the meaning of the language in understanding one of its uses that we still use?

Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier. — Tom Storm

The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy?

But I think this is part of what makes philosophy particularly interesting to me -- that it doesn't close off the study of people who would answer "Yes" to the above question. Whereas the syncretic approach would provide a more solid answer, in the way the self-help books do: people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one.

But philosophy would leave the question open.

No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology. — Tom Storm

Got it.

You know, as an advocate for philosophy, I'm tempted to say "see, it has a use!"

But I feel you're expressing a kind of skepticism to the approach. Am I misreading you?

For my part I'm fine with any discipline using philosophy, even syncretically, though it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy -- not every useful use of philosophy need be philosophy proper. Sometimes it's just a useful place to begin, and put to rest when you realize the concepts are clear.

Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense. — Tom Storm

A bit loosy goosey on my part in an attempt to show that after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. (philosophy proper is a social practice)

There is a large enough overlap to call it the same language, yes. It's not usual for all speakers of a language to be familiar with its entire vocabulary, and it is quite common for each party in a conversation to apply a word as it is used in a different discipline. — Vera Mont

Heh, then I'd say we're in a conundrum: at what point is there not enough overlap? Is it just more like a feeling of frustration which we give into, and so the beginnings of a social divide starts, and eventually -- over time and practice -- the groups evolve differently?

Surely there is more than one language. And surely there is miscommunication. What enables us to learn another language, or to understand a miscommunication?

The agility of the human mind. We apply associations and imagination to accommodate variation. We can usually correct quite accurately for errors on spelling and regional difference in pronunciation, as well as discern the merits of creative linguistic construction - hence the appreciation of poetry and humour. — Vera Mont

I find that unsatisfying because it comes back to the idea that meaning is mental. While I'm happy to say we need a mind to speak, or at least a brain, I don't think meaning is mental. Or at least, if meaning is public, you get into some weird thoughts about the mental then -- like that the mental is also public, when we usually think of our individual minds as being not-quite-so-public.

Not entirely false, but definitely counter-intuitive.

Part of my background thoughts is that meaning is a part of the world, and overflows our attempt to grasp it -- and language is that very attempt to solidify, in thought, what can't be solidified in thought.

Well, sometimes we don't understand. — BC

Good point.

And maybe that's the better question too: why don't we understand, sometimes? Or maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree.

So: we encounter new words that are familiar to other speakers; we can guess at the meaning from context, ask what it means, or look it up. — BC

A handy list of techniques for determining meaning.


Really, I think that's basically exhaustive. At least these are the usual ways of determining meaning.

So, as @unenlightened hinted at, there was no question here at all, and all the theories of meaning are just so many words missing the point because you can't determine meaning ahead of time, you have to learn it.

Is it because of this experience that we believe others are wrong when they use a word in some way we perceive as novel? "Look, the locution has been this way for a long time, and I don't understand why you'd change it..."

Or is it always a matter of some other disagreement -- that the meaning is well understood, but the claim that one or the other person does not understand the meaning is usually an exaggeration, and is more like shorthand for "I wouldn't say it like that"?

Moliere tells me the self is entirely social (I think), and for the record that strikes me as nuts. As nuts as thinking our ideas about sexuality are entirely cultural. But I don't have a theory to offer about our identity intuitions, and if I did have one it wouldn't be worth much. That's a research program, far as I'm concerned. — Srap Tasmaner

Earlier in the conversation I said to @180 Proof that we should at least be able to, through philosophy, get to the point of saying "needs further research" or at least make clear that the issue is not clear.

So I'm happy with the conclusion that these questions are snowballing into, to be appropriately addressed, what would require a research program.

And you understand me in my thinking that the self is entirely social -- though I hope to make it explicit that this is a philosophical stance. Basically these are the concepts I'd start with in a research program, the conceptual machinery around the question, that sort of thing.

There are some reasons for starting with culture that I'd put forward: feral children and enculturation, and the multiplicity of sexual expressions across cultures suggest that our cultural environment at least influences our performances. Also the cultural lens doesn't make a strong distinction between bodies and who we are, in a way skipping over the mind-body problem (whereas if we wanted a psychological explanation of identity we'd pretty much have to at least address the mind-body problem, which seems to lead us, with our present knowledge, to reject that there even is a self)

Further by starting from culture it opens the conceptual door to theatrical theories -- which I think are very ripe for talking about identity. It's kind of the actor's craft to be able to recreate identities, wear them, perform them convincingly, and step out of them. And if identity just is performance, then what they have to say on this performance might prove fruitful. (also, interesting!)

But -- I'm also happy with the conclusion "needs further research" -- though I'll keep picking at the question, as I do.

I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. — Tom Storm

Hrm!

I don't see them as unrelated, obviously.

What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions?

What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.

I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually.

But cannibalization and syncretism for the purposes of self-help: sure! I see that. I do it!

I don't see it as a bad thing, though. I see it as the fledgling beginnings of a philosophy. The syncretic form is great for working things out for yourself, which I certainly believe that's where I started, but then I think it starts to become apparent that the syncretism doesn't really work at certain cracks, and that the only reason these concepts are being brought together is the common thinker who thought them and thought they were cool or seemed to work or what have you.

Basically I see it as part of a philosophical journey that one can choose to take, if they want to or not. Eventually I think it possible to start reading texts and letting them breathe on their own and seeing why other people thought differently from you. I think that's when philosophy proper really begins, at least of the non-academic sort, and certainly of the more casual sort too. But still there's that drive for consistency and the pleasure of seeing the ideas at work, and also of making it about something more than just yourself -- not just your own self-help tool, but something which appeals to others.

And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident?

But you are not "taking a minute of fame" you are contributing a minute (or seconds, really) of fame. For which I am grateful. Every second counts. — BC

One of the things I like about the Oxford English Dictionary is that it is empirical in its research -- it looks for actual uses to support the record of meaning. It is an empirical historical method of inquiry.

And with that comes new uses. The dictionary is never finished since, from our present record, we clearly see that meaning shifts over time.

Maybe the better question is -- how is it, given that meaning is public, that we understand novel uses?

over a far larger population that incorrectly believes it owns and speaks a single language. — Vera Mont

Now that's intriguing, and I think forms the most radical interpretation of @frank's "creative" side of the gradient of meaning.

At a certain point we don't speak the same language. It becomes Middle English or German or some such.

But are you and I speaking the same language in this series of posts?

Those images produce guilt (or axon potentials in the anterior middle cingulate cortex with accompanying increase in cortisol and adrenaline and changes in heart rate accompanied by digestive discomfort, depending of your preferred frame!), we need to understand that and do something to make that nasty feeling go away. Physiologically, those feelings are 'designed' specifically to force us to come up with a plan to alleviate them. — Isaac

I think that when we've become inundated in propaganda the guilt starts to fade away. It's just another emotion floating along with the others.

Earlier I posited that a man who is mature is content with his discontentment. I have no desire to let go of my emotions, but I also know when I'm being manipulated. A mature man accepts his emotions, feels them even if they are uncomfortable, even if they are from a source of manipulation. But it's not like I'm going to defer much to a source which basically gut punches the heart, usually to follow up with an ask for a donation to the cause. I know why I feel what I feel, but that doesn't mean the source of the guilt trip is something worth listening to.

And in a society where manipulation is the norm people will develop these defenses to their emotions, which in turn will cause people to make enemies as they begin to lose the desire to offer charity. It's learned callousness so you can get on with life, which is what the grind does is teach you to be selfish and stop caring about the world. It's enough to care for your family, and after that -- for most it's too much to care about. Especially given the uncertainty of it all: it's not like caring about politics is going to lead to good or bad outcomes. Most people feel like they have no power over these things, and so it's back to the hand-to-mouth, paycheck to paycheck. Let the people rich enough to care duke it out, and if you really feel something then go vote.

Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful? — Tom Storm

It is for me, but I definitely attribute that to my being raised with all these questions like they had certain answers and always finding the answers unsatisfactory, but the questions remained. Then eventually I came across this whole subject called philosophy that seemed to delight in that very exercise! At the very least in the spirit of finding the limits of reason.

But if someone is happy with their life? One of the things I like about Epicurean philosophy is that while there was a master, the life of the philosopher is not thought to be special -- but just one of the roles people play within a community. Some people tend the garden, some people learn the words, some people teach the words, but it's an interdependent community and the philosopher is not made special by the practice.

And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them.

This is the better way to put the question given the nonsense of private languages:

Given that meaning is public -- for what reasons do we disagree over meaning?

All of these evolutionary changes are possible without disrupting communication, only as long as they take place logically (there is a need for a new word, a comprehensible reason for an adjustment, and consensus among the primary users of the jargon) and gradually (so that the users of the language have time to learn the new application.) Otherwise, Babel ensues. — Vera Mont

In favor of this picture of linguistic change I'd say that languages do, in fact, take a long time to change. There's a stability there which is the reason we are tempted by the metaphor of the Public Shelf of Meaning, or in more sophisticated prose, metaphysical Propositions.

What I'd substitute for Propositions is repetition. By repeatedly using a locution in a similar fashion it comes to seem that the days resemble one another, or even that there are days at all rather than intermittent light-space dark-space. Then by finding ways to preserve our writing over time that allowed us the metaphor of nature as book that we can read. The fundamentals of writing are the same between speech and the script, the only difference is rate at which the sign fades, which in turn allows us to start interpreting the sign in the same way that we were interpreting the world, which gives rise to the picture of Propositions.

We have nothing to lose but our blockchains.

I've felt in reading along we've been in concert in our thinking, just from different angles. It's been great to read along.

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post. — Tom Storm

In this libidinal economy?

Totally understandable.

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism. — Tom Storm

Glad to hear it :) -- though I'll give stoicism to the truly stoic, I think it's lessons are over-emphasized for how it interacts with most humans.

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on. — Tom Storm

Right! So can one be a philosopher outside of academia, or are they just another YouTube personality, guru, or self-styled life coach?

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D

OK I see that context wasn't in this thread -- guess I should have waited a bit in thinking out the OP after all. Oh well.

It's the metaphor I reject from the outset, at least. Though it seems we're in agreement on the limitations of the PLA, too. So I think it just makes me confused.

I'm sorry, I'm out of the loop on what the original disagreement was. If the question is asked: "Is that a dog?", the meaning of the uttered sentence is partly a matter of context and partly about what we pick out as dogs by convention. — frank

Probably best to leave the context behind. That was the idea behind starting a new thread -- I didn't want the conversation on identity in the masculinity thread to become a conversation on the meaning of statements of identity. But the creation of this thread was a bit extemporaneous from my usual approach: trying to spin off into another discussion that is more suitable to the question of meaning.

"By convention" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, with that in mind. Isn't that like pointing to the public shelf of meaning?

Like "Jack is a dog"? That kind of statement? — frank

Yup, that fits the form. The original question was with respect to gender-identity, but the form is there.

The one thing about the form that might elude the original disagreement is that "Jack is a dog" can be read not just as an identity-statement, but also as a description. It'd depend upon the context -- if the question is "Did you buy a cat or a dog?" then that's a description, but if Jack is running around the yard barking like dogs do, and so you express "Jack is a dog" then that's an identity-statement.

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate? — Tom Storm

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. You're not wrong: Epicurus' philosophy comes across as aphoristic and motherly, especially in my emphasis of the letters (Cicero and Lucretius formulate more coherent arguments). The task for his interpreters is to turn it into something more than that, which I believe it is.

With regards to Epicurus' philosophy I think one problem of life is the fear of death -- how to deal with that? Then there are also fears of supernatural beings, that we need to touch the roof three times before saying "Happy Holidays!" or else the Banshee will eat your first born. I think the human mind has a tendency to find patterns that are unreal that cause fear or anxiety. Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom.

Then there's the desire for things, and the desire to avoid things which, because we are human, can become compounded by the very words we use to understand those desires -- I don't just want such and such I must have such and such. Or if I am to lose tomorrow I cannot live with myself, and am miserable now because of that misery!

However the fear I have is that it's not philosophy at work, but instead is just a shopping for ideas that resonate. One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer.

Sorry I must have missed your reply earlier, didn't mean to ignore it. — Isaac

No worries.

Yeah... I think that's guilt-based too, though. No one genuinely buys that shit... do they? — Isaac

Yes, and not just yes, but absolutely yes. The reason politicians can get away with saying what looks like obvious bullshit is they know what people like to hear, and that's what wins elections. The reason good union members with a strong foundation in solidarity vote for Republicans is because they can speak to the issues a union member believes are important -- like abortion, gun rights, and God. I always summed up Republican politics in the red states as revolving around God, guns, and babies -- you need God in your life to get you right, you need guns in your life to defeat the bad guys, and if you're going to have sex then you should take care of that baby no matter what.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is guilt based. Guilt is an emotion which builds institutions -- it makes people predictable enough that you'll have the numbers you need. Catholicism got by with that for over a millenia, so clearly guilt is an important motivator in building long-lasting institutions.

I just don't think it's going to be a guilt based in Marxism. The starving kids in China, as Mom would say to guilt trip us into eating vegetables, don't seem to have much to do with an individual's life, which is circumscribed by nationalist politics. Especially in the USA, I think people view themselves as having won the lottery by being born here. And if they just work hard enough they can be rich like Elon Musk, and they don't want to pay taxes because they know how to manage their own money on the stock market better, and all the other individualistic nonsense people really do believe.

There might be an underlying guilt for those with the conscience -- but that there's a carrot at the other end where you're in charge of your own destiny, I think, is what distracts from the reality of an industrial society. Plus there are all these reasons to reject Marxism, such as the violence of its political movement which is very real. (and capital's violence is intentionally designed to be easy to overlook, I think)

That's a more charitable way of looking at it that maybe I could adopt. I'm not sure I'm ready to excuse the lack of perspective relative to the major victims (the destitute), but I'm willing to go as far as to see genuine victimhood. — Isaac

That's pretty much where I'm at. If there's somehow, miraculously, a reasonable chance to actually change international conditions I'd sign up. In the meantime there are victims nearby who certainly aren't the destitute, but aren't doing too good either.

We do. So many threads to pull on here, not sure which to follow and which to save for later... — Isaac

Honestly I'm pretty happy with where we've ended up -- if I can complete the reduction to philosophical disagreements then there are future discussions to be had, and I think we agree there at least.

Well, then I'd be wrong! Again, supporting an active inference model of language is probably another thread we could pull on, but it's been combed through on other threads. — Isaac

Heh OK makes sense.

The thing I'm most vexed about is the victim culture, the way that not adhering to this (or any other) scheme is treated as an act of oppression. That I think is dangerous because it undermines attempts to address actual oppression. Most of what I'm doing here is showing that it's not oppressive. It might be old-fashioned, clumsy, but not an act of abuse. — Isaac

I think that makes sense.

For what it's worth, I believe you. I don't think it wise to jump at people for every possible slight. I said earlier on I believe there are some egos that need deflating. I can go that far ,because I don't like self-righteousness when it comes to politicking. It's far too gray to really go full-on into one's own self-righteousness unless one hasn't reflected enough.

But, hey, I was young enough once to have that feeling, too.

Then it what sense is it a 'social' creation, if others play no role in it and are overruled by the individual? That doesn't, on the face of it, sound very social. It sounds entirely private. — Isaac

This is going to get into the conceptual territory I've already admitted I'm uncertain about. But I'll take a stab anyways.

One of the things I like to remind people about Marx who are starting is that his scope is something a new reading is unlikely to be familiar with -- political economy. It's a jump even from standard sociology which tries to find some scientific explanation for phenomena -- it's an attempted scientific explanation for all social phenomena including the genesis of the state. It's a scope wider than countries, because it deals with the economies of countries and their transition from feudalism to capitalism.

The socially constituted subject is at a scope of explanation that doesn't impinge upon conversations except to say something about higher level rules that might explain why we're talking about this or that, but once we get down to the level of identity the scope is different.

But how to differentiate the scopes? Well, that's exactly where I'm stuck. The old question for me is finding the difference between social and psychological entities. I haven't answered it yet.

Your title reminds me of Martha Nussbaum's The Therapy of Desire.

And I'm a lover of Hadot's take on ancient philosophy. He's definitely worked his thoughts into my own.

The one name unlisted that I'd highlight is Epicurus. I've posted this quote before, but I'll do it again because I love Epicurus.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it. — Letter to Menoeceus

Which is really just a way to say -- yup. I love the study of philosophy in its relationship to the problems of life.

That's absurd, but there are people on this forum who will blow through that absurdity and assert it anyway. — frank

I thought that at one point, though sometimes I flirt with the notion too. But it is absurd, I understand. (though the world is too by my reckoning, so there are worse conclusions)

One of my pet peeves is the way the Private Language Argument is misinterpreted on this site. Some people do it over and over and that misinterpretation spreads. The argument only suggests that you can't have a language that is untranslatable even in principle. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can make up your own words for things, or have your own private thoughts which you never share with others. — frank

I think I'm tracking. This is why I thought going down the PLA was different from understanding Identity -- but I do think the PLA has a bearing on some common thoughts about the meaning of identity-statements. Of course we have private thoughts we can keep to ourselves, but this doesn't speak against the argument basically. In defense of this interpretation it's common for people to go the other way with it, too, and claim that Wittgenstein is wrong because we obviously have a private life, or some such.

When the truth is that Wittgenstein was such a philosopher's philosopher that it's best to reserve judgments from thinking he supports this or that thing we care about. (early on cutting my teeth on W. I did the same thing -- seeing connections to leftist politics and all that. Eventually I figured out that that part was all me just trying to grasp the thoughts of a genius mind. It's an easy mistake to make with the greats)

Yes, that was the idea. We are the avenues by which meaning accrues, but, in some real sense, it must also be external to us since it is objectively encapsulated and shared. It is a bit of an enigma. Possibly the notion of a collective entity solves this? — Pantagruel

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "collective entity", I think that's the idea behind Propositions. But I thought your original proposal more interesting because it makes meaning dependent on even more than context, but also one's knowledge of a particular language. So this multiplies meanings even more while sensibly saying how it is they are multiplied -- since meanings are changed by what they are couched in, not just the meanings that are around the sentence but even the knowledge of a speaker is relevant.

Which would really put a number on determining identity-statements -- the very same phrase in the same context spoken by two different speakers, even in the third person, can mean different things. "He is a cautious man" so rest assured vs "He is a cautious man" so don't expect him to do much.

My penalty is too heavy to bare! :D I probably have earned the sentence, though, given how often I wonder about meaning.

I like the relationship between poet and philosopher -- subversive to put the poet as the maker of what the philosopher needs to do his craft!

Meaning evolves as it accrues new experience. Barring simple ostensives, the meaning of words derives from their function in sentence-level constructs (or larger). Average vocabulary ranges typically from about 10 to 30,000 words. What any given (non-trivial) word - duty for example - means for a person with a vocabulary of 10,000 words must be different from what it means for a person with a vocabulary of 30,000 words. Except if the former is in the military, and the latter is a cloistered academic. So meaning must be complex function of both social activity and linguistic competence. — Pantagruel

Your opening sentence is a bit cryptic. Is it the meaning which accrues new experience, or is it the speaker?

:D I'll only take a minute of your remaining fame.

Yes; "home" has numerous Public Shelf meanings and usages.

a) baseball (home base)
b) the 'home' keys on the QWERTY keyboard--'f' and 'j'
c) magic (rub your ruby crocs together 3 times and say "get me the hell out of here and back home."
d) a place to die ("Home is where, when you go there, they have to take you in." The Death of the Hired Man by Robert Frost
e) retail (Home Depot; the Home Store; HOM;
f) medical (a facility you may be sent to possibly against your will) old folks home; nursing home; a home for the very bewildered
g) a trait of animals -- homing instinct

Words have recognized usage. Where can you find a record of current and past word usage? In the 20 fat volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Words have denotations (their plain most direct meaning) and connotations (their nuanced, shaded meaning). "The armored car weighs a ton" is denotative. "She weighs a ton" is connotative.

Take away: The Public Shelf meaning of words has plenty of room to maneuver. It isn't necessary or desirable for each individual to supply his or her own meaning nor for each use of a word to have a unique meaning.

You could be like Humpty Dumpty: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Fine for the cracked egg. — BC

We both agree that words have a recognized usage. Meaning is public. I think the part of the metaphor I dislike is the "shelf" part, as if it's in a garage somewhere or containable in a Museum: language-as-bicycle. I certainly don't subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning, though.

But let's take a gander to a time before the Oxford English Dictionary was invented. The "shelf" part of the metaphor looses potency, though we might have to gander further back before the printing press to take the wind out of its sails. And before ships how were journeys and transitions talked of? What of the record of the metaphors before the script, when all writing was phonic?

My uncertainty is more to do with how meaning becomes public than whether it is. Or, since private meaning is a nonsense a how question for publicity is likewise nonsense, how is meaning shared?

Bullshit:(Creative---Orthodoxy):Bullshit

Is Bullshit on the left-hand side the same as Bullshit on the right hand side?

And do you mean Bullshit like Harry Frankfurt?

In the spirit of the original thread, though, I'd ask what is the meaning of identification statements?

Is there a Public Shelf Meaning to:

"I walked home"?

I suspect that's not an identification statement in the sense of identifying-with, except for how we might interpret "I"

"Richard Nixon was a good Democrat"

doesn't sound like an identification statement to me. It sounds like a statement written to make people angry.

But it is of the form of an identification statement, complete with the "way" modifier "good".

Thanks :)

I agree it's a rare conversation. We should have doxxed one another by now while rallying the rabble to burn eachother at the stake ;)

I'm not saying that we ought select from publicly available narratives, I'm saying we do. I'm making an empirical claim about the way the human psyche works. We do not construct unique and detailed identities from scratch through some internal interrogation. We pick from the stories we see around us, the identities, like parts in a play. I'm not making an ethical claim. You are ethically free to construct your identity from scratch. I don't believe you either can or will. — Isaac

I agree that identity doesn't come from scratch. Though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that identity comes from the human psyche, either -- the subject is constituted socially, in my view, but that doesn't make it any less real (and it also doesn't mean that someone else is in a better position to declare the identity of another) Rather than a claim about the general structure of the human psyche this is an aspect of humanity that is largely social: a kind of reason that's beyond the brain, shared across bodies and brains through our practices.

It's not an 'or else' but yes, I'll stand by that. We have a victim culture, and I believe guilt is at least a major part of the reason. We all know how much better off we are and we all know it's grossly unfair. If that didn't have an effect we'd be zombies, and if that effect was universally positive we'd be saints. I don't believe we're either. — Isaac

I don't know if we all really do know that in the sense of who is culpable. My point in bringing up the popularity of Marxism was that this claim of guilt largely depends upon a person's relationship to Marxism -- for most they'll accept the line that capitalism is what will set us free, and that it's just a matter of progress and time for the less fortunate to be lifted up by its magic insofar that we're able to curb the excesses of capital (themselves measured by a nationalist, rather than internationalist, measure)

A usual component of guilt, perception of one's self-culpability in doing wrong, just isn't there for most people. They'll look at you like you look at the gender-benders, complete with stories as to why you'd commit yourself to an unpopular worldview.

I don't think we have a victim culture in the sense of desiring to be a victim, except perhaps for those bored enough to really crave pain -- but rather I think there really are just that many victims. Capital is violent.

Your second second half belies the first. You claim "we utilize it not on the basis of our shared language, but on a day-to-day basis for understanding one another and ourselves". That's a scientific claim. It's making a statement about how humans (a clearly empirical object) think. You can't claim the concept isn't scientific and then give a detailed account of how it works. — Isaac

I can if the detailed account is not scientific, which I've been denying. History is empirical, but not scientific -- so just that something is empirical is not enough to qualify it as a scientific subject.

Plumbing is the example Massimo Pigliucci likes to use to distinguish between know-how and science, and how empiricism is much wider than scientific practice -- it requires concepts, it requires testing out the pipes, and doing plumbing requires some knowledge of scientific concepts but the trade itself isn't exactly a science in the sense that we usually mean. But it's certainly knowledge.

In fact it's my position that most of our world, which is real, isn't really amenable to scientific practice, given how science relies upon prediction and universality for its force of persuasion. Anything that is real, not-universal and not-predictable will escape its purview, and as it happens a lot of the things we care about seem to fit in there -- plumbing, politics, how to drive a care, how to ride a bike, conversing, politicking, acting, the law... much of our performances, be they on the world-stage or a venue, fit here. Which is exactly the sort of practice I imagine the identity is -- real, but not-scientific.

So I'm guessing that we also have different notions about science's relationship to ontology and philosophy in addition to our respective stances on The Subject.

I don't see how language could possibly work that way. We'd never understand what each other were saying if we just allowed new meanings to constantly spring forth. I wouldn't get five minutes into my day if those I'm speaking to had no foundation to judge my meaning. Sure, language evolves, but that's not that same as saying anything goes. Some neologisms take, others don't. None just spring forth fully formed from day-to-day. — Isaac

The problem with transcendental arguments is that they can always be constructed in reverse.

We'd never deal with novelty if we were stuck using the same words, and so on.

But what if language is always-already this ambiguous judgment between what has been and what will be? And what if lowering surprise isn't the social goal for linguistic use? Most of the time, in creative use, we look for what will surprise rather than what will conform. The dance between conformity and novelty is a social dance, which just so happens to also include language (as a social practice).

And why does 'charity' get invoked with new meanings but not with the retention of old ones?

Because even using the old meanings in a new context is already a new meaning, under my notion of language at least. So it's a failure of charity on both parts, in terms of mis-communication at least.

But also sometimes people revoke charity because they've had enough, and decide that you're not part of the language-group they are. That is the words are not conceptually incommensurable, but the practices are. We understand one another just fine. We just disagree. (and some, recognizing that, simply refuse to extend charity -- they're not interested in understanding in that case, and language ceases to work)

But that's not what's happening here. I'm not being asked to merely understand a new use of gender terms, I'm being asked to partake in it. And not just that, I'm being asked to entirely replace my previous use with this new one, and further in many cases being accused of hate speech and bigotry if I don't.

I really think it's stretching credulity to lump all that under mere request for charitable interpretation. — Isaac

In terms of language use I think that's exactly what sees us through, though. What charity explains is why miscommunication occurs here -- it's because charity is not being offered that language breaks, and language-games become incommensurable through the practices they are a part of.

The new gender-bender sees the old uses as bad, and has a community that understands the value of the new uses.

You don't have to convert to the new religion. But you might need to offer some persuasion as to why the old system which punished people for being themselves is preferable in order to earn any charity to be extended to the old uses. In general the radicals tend to see the old world as basically bad, so it's an uphill sell. And on the whole people who adopt new ways don't see much value in the old ways, almost like they were already dissatisfied with how the old language-game played out and from that dissatisfaction crafted a philosophy that expresses that dissatisfaction.

But me -- I think there's value across generational divides, and that we'll be able to work out our differences. And at least you have being a Marxist going for you ;). Hence my pointing out the need for charity. But if you don't want to offer it, I don't think anyone can force you to. That's the way conversations work. I don't think we can say at this time that it's a lack of understanding one another, though. I've provided a schema complete with a marker that says "this is what needs more work". We understand one another fine. What we disagree upon is which way is a better way for our life-practices -- which language-game of gender should we play? Well, I'll pick the language-game that recognizes who I am. And being the bridge-builder that I tend to be I'll play the old game for as long as needed to catch people up to the new game. I don't think it's quite as much on its way out as I put it before -- religions have a way of sticking around even after they fragment, and I'm thinking gender is much like religion in its social dimension.

Yes, were on the same page here. It's why I'm comfortable saying there's no such thing. Identity isn't a psychological state one 'discovers' by interoception, it's part of our naming and storytelling practices, like 'hippy', or 'geek'. We collect performances into useful groupings and name them. The utility is about them playing a role in our stories so they're less surprising, and that works both ways - it's not imposed, it's agreed upon. — Isaac

I definitely don't think identity is a thing -- hence my rejection of the Cartesian subject. More like a collection, but not a bundle. It's a specific collection that's important to whatever identity is.

I agree identity is not a psychological state one discovers by interoception. That's maybe a first step for some, but not all -- what's important is how one comports themselves with others. My thought is identity is a social creation entirely, but that it's also entirely real and we can be right or wrong about it. The person whose in the best position, most of the time, for making that judgment is the person whose identity it is.

My claims come back to whether you accept there is a standpoint for identity, rather than the metaphysical claim, or even empirical claim, about identity.

Yes, I agree. There's a tension between the expectations of public roles and the utility of having them at all. It's not all one way though. Knowing what to do next is fiendishly complicated and fraught with uncertainty. A device for resolving some of that uncertainty isn't always a bad thing. — Isaac

Cool. Then while we began with trans identity, it might be better to finish with some other kind of identity -- like identity in general (as if that were easy....) -- because I think our disagreements are very much philosophical. And not finish in this thread -- just more like bookmarking "OK, interesting ideas to explore are identity in general, the relationship between science and ontology or philosophy, and the significance of science at large"

I think this is at the core of how we see things differently. I just don't believe in this notion of a 'true self'. — Isaac

There are ways in which I believe in it and ways in which I do not. There's the Cartesian full-blown subject which I reject, which already puts me on shaky footing with some of my favorite philosophers. My coming back around to the subject has more to do with realizing how attached people are to so much that the metaphysical subject "explains" or at least encapsulates into a tidy concept.

And there, looking at it as a concept only rather than a metaphysical reality -- and how the concept relates to individuals within a social environment -- I think I see a sort of reality to the true self, though girded underneath with the ethical commitment that the true self is content with itself (while acknowledging that this is simply taken for granted -- that other philosophies could posit other values. That is what philosophy does, after all).

It's not the immutable, immortal, or even necessarily epistemically privileged subject. The reasons we accept standpoints have much less to do with our conceptual machinery and much more to do with how we understand ourselves, others, and our relative abilities with respect to such and such. And further it seems to me that there is a kind of broaching of the subject through our relationship to others, such that our inter-relations a/effect our identities, or can depending upon how we relate to one another. An ideal relationship being the face-to-face, which is not a conceptual proof but a phenomenological encounter.

But for that to even be approached there needs to be trust, which in turn means ceding ground to others to hear them. And in denying someone their identity it's certainly not the case that you're unheard -- far from it. Your meaning is clear -- my identity is a lie because I ought select from the binary on the shelf like everyone else so that we can get onto the important things, at least until the parties that be can invent a science of the self to my specifications, or else you're just clearly playing the victim so you don't have to deal with the guilt of living in the global north but can instead play the victim of the people you sympathize with while simultaneously not realizing your material life depends upon their suffering.

At least that's the message I've received thus far.

Which is why I've been trying to highlight how identity isn't a scientific concept, and that we utilize it not on the basis of our shared language, but on a day-to-day basis for understanding one another and ourselves. Truth may not enter into it, but significance does. And we get by with these shoddy meanings by granting charity, sometimes interpreting towards what is true when that's apparent, and sometimes interpreting towards significance when that's apparent. Since meaning is use, after all, new meanings are invented daily as we re-encounter new contexts. Every use of the word is itself a new meaning which isn't fixed by a Public Shelf of Meaning, but is instead invented as we provide charity for creative uses in new contexts.

There's a sense in which identity is performance, and so it's not truth-apt. But that's not to say it's not real. All conversations are performances, but they're real conversations. They could be insincere or inauthentic, perhaps, but that's getting into the territory of identity rather than prediction: neither a trait nor a behavior will tell you if a statement is sincere or authentic. That'd depend upon how you see the person as a person.

That is, I don't think the difficulties of specifying identity are unique to trans individuals, but have always been there -- it's just that this topic has highlighted these difficulties for people.

OK that's interesting.

My thought is that as soon as you have an option then you'll leap at it, as I did. It's not that people weren't somewhere on the gender-bender spectrum, it's that it has become acceptable in some circles to be yourself in that way. In another time people would re-express in various ways, but -- in the positive spirit of capitalism that Marx likes -- we've invented new social forms because it was profitable to do so.

Also, I feel empathy for trans people because I feel like I'm both sides of the gender-spectrum -- I suspect that many people are, but I've learned to reserve my judgment over time as I talk to people. People really are different in their various ways of relating to their gender, their body, and their identity or gender-identity.

This seems like an oversimplification. why would no one play victim? We're on a thread where half the human population are being at least implicated in oppressing the other half. We've heard the insensitivity of white folk to their privilege. there doesn't seem to be any hesitation in assuming all sorts of malicious (conscious and subconscious) behaviour on the part of the currently vilified (whites, men, cis), so why would minority groups suddenly become so angelic? — Isaac

OK, you're right -- not no one no one.

I don't think most are, though. I wouldn't reach for guilt-removal/repression-expression as much as I'd reach for learned callousness -- people learn to be selfish and pursue their own needs. There's probably a few who've felt connected to the zeitgeist who are mistaken -- and I certainly don't think anyone is angelic. I just think looking at the benefits/cost analysis of declaring yourself trans and living that out that there's not really a lot of advantages, and so people who are confused will figure it out and move on.

Is there even a side? Or are there a multiplicity of sides being generated in order to keep people coming back?

Either way, no one is immune. I think it affects us all pretty equally. It's like when you learn there's this cognitive bias called such and such: just because you know about it doesn't mean you're immune to it. Even if you have a ritual, as I've outlined with absolute skepticism, the propaganda still effects feelings -- Propaganda works.

I must be wrong, not merely behind-the-times. I must be wrong so that they can be wronged. — Isaac

Well, I wouldn't make this claim, at least. But I don't think anyone is playing victim either -- I think trans people are victimized through violence against them. The bit on pronouns is kind of a test: how do you view me? If you reject me then there's no reason to trust you. But it's not like misgendering someone is a mortal sin. It's just rude. Or, if you're wanting to know if you're safe, valuable to know who doesn't believe you.

So the correct application is to sex (reproductive capability, here), not gender (a much wider grouping of expressions and roles)? You seemed to be saying earlier that the correct usage was to apply it according to individual preferences. — Isaac

In the beginning there was the binary, and it was judged good. The binary stated that our biological make-up accounted for our mentality which accounted for our social role.

Then, lo and behold, Kate Millet turnethed the binary on its head and said -- no! It is the role which is the foundation, the mentality which is the excuse, and the biology which is the marker.

In the beginning there was no gender, there was only sex used in a gender-wise fashion. But the beginning is at an end, and so we have this new distinction called "gender" to highlight differences in the use of "sex". Furthermore there is "gender" that shall be distinguished from "gender-identity", where the former is the social role and the latter is whatever identity is.

I was saying pronouns work by referring correctly. They were correcting your usage with regards to themselves. We make slip ups (not even related to this topic) all the time, and usually charity is what sees us through. Further, anyone whose asked me to change my use has been charitable and gracious. So that saw us through. Now I can use the word still.

This is how pronouns work.

I can't see any more good reason to limit your assessment of the general trans movement to the people you've met that you would limit your assessment of masculinity to only those men you've met. We have means by which we can expand our knowledge of how larger groups act. — Isaac

People often remark that philosophy is useless. One favored thought experiment to demonstrate its uselessness is the Evil Demon scenario. Of what use could absolute skepticism be?

One thing I learned from my time doing activisty things is that the newspaper is pretty much always picking a side. Further, that social media would rip groups apart -- useful as tool for communication, but not as tool for organizing (at least my style of it). The organizers task was half planning half counseling, like a priest of modernity.

Absolute skepticism is useful when we encounter a scenario where we have good reason to disbelieve almost everything, or at least be doubtful of almost everything. And I pretty much take that stance towards the news, social media, and so forth. Almost always there's another side to a story if you want to dig into it, a way to justify one side or the other, a deeper reason than the one presented -- and sometimes, as in the cases of police violence, there are outright lies.

Now, people go around reading this stuff thinking it's real. In part it is. You can't write good propaganda without truth -- this is something that's often missed. Propaganda is a mixture of truth and non-truth with an emotional message intended to reinforce or flip people's attachment to their beliefs.

When all the messages we're receiving are from the propaganda machine then absolute skepticism is warranted. Not that these things don't exist -- but there's a reason I'm being told this story. For my money I think the propaganda machine is automated now, not even caring about what beliefs people have but caring about what people will do. To make people predictable, going back to Machiavelli, you use fear. And capital "wants" people to be predictable because then you can plan profit flows, have workers show up on time, and so on. Or maximize engagement -- the propaganda machine automatically selects for any belief which will maximize engagement.

EDIT: This really is a sermon on Marx. I love it.

But that wouldn't explain why we both got the joke.

So no, if someone who is male thinks they ought to be referred to as 'she', they've misunderstood how the word is used. Doesn't mean they can't wear dresses, doesn't mean they can't wear make-up. It's just an odd facet of our language that we use a different form of address for different sexes. — Isaac

I think it's a pretty common distinction across languages, though my familiarity is European languages: English as primary with some studies in German and Spanish. So it's not the linguist's viewpoint.

I don't think it an oddity at all though because patriarchy -- the patrilineal descent and control of property -- is a common among the cultures which utilize these languages. We mark distinctions which are important, and being able to tell who is going to own the stuff after I die is important. I'd say that patriarchy is so deep that it's influenced our very way of speaking, and thereby, thinking.

. But right now, one is not misusing a word because a particular group want it used differently.

Of course, I've no intention of traumatising anyone by deliberately doing something which is going to upset them, but honestly, if people are going to be upset by the fact that the entire world does not jump to it in support of their preferred treatment, I think they have much bigger issues to concern themselves with than my habits of address. — Isaac

In real life, and not on the internet (which is different), any trans person I've known has been gracious towards me figuring out the customs they prefer.

Probably why I'm pro-trans. I've never really had a problem with any trans person I've met in real life. (the internet, though, as I said earlier -- I really think it changes the way we relate, at least on the social media pages with algorithms designed to increase engagement no matter what)

A joke, yes, but with a point -- it's true we understand one another in this conversation, I believe.

Given the indeterminacy of translation, how do we understand one another?

My answer is we're not translating. (there's also something about gavagai that's not right as an example -- it focuses too much on mereology and less on usage)