If Davidson wishes to preserve a purported distinction between what a speaker means and what their words mean then literal meaning cannot ever be what a speaker means(but it quite often is).
— creativesoul

I think that's wrong. Preserving the distinction merely means to preserve the analytical category. If you do that, you can say that what the speaker means is what the words mean. If you don't preserve the categories, you can't say that in terms of this particular theory, because you lack the tools. He's just describing the analytical framework, here. (The sentence Srap Tasmaner pointed out and I missed about making a distinction between what is "literal" and what is "conventional"... that is really odd, though. I'm not sure what to make of this.) — Dawnstorm

Yeah, I think you're right. Srap pointed to it as well, but I missed it. Even if it is often the case that what a speaker means is the same as the literal meaning, there are still cases where it is not. Hence, the distinction is preserved.

However, Davidson did say something about not blurring it. When what the person means is the same as the literal meaning, the distinction is blurred. Probably inconsequential.

Methodological Naturalism. Each success becomes a science. How many sciences are there?

Hence, there are aspects of language that are not captured by such an algorithmic translation process. — Banno

Meaning being the most important one.

I believe that I part ways with analytic philosophy when it comes to truth.

The problem with discussing truth and/or defining it is the approach. What sorts of things can be true(in the relevant sense) and what makes them so?

Davidson's project failed. Not sure why you've taken it or analytic philosophy to heart so much.

Nonetheless, one cannot deter someone from voting, or suppress a vote, by showing anti-Clinton ads on Facebook. — NOS4A2

So, why do it then?

You're such a chump.

For example... Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are a treasure trove of accurate, useful, and true information(relevant knowledge) regarding the socioeconomic problems in America and the disasterous public policies which have gotten us where we are today.

Except when you mistakenly ask for a socket and I know you meant to ask for a wrench (or should have meant to ask for a wrench), I know what object you actually need because my understanding is aligned with reality, despite what you said. If I were to describe my understanding, my semantic engine will produce "wrench", because it is aligned with -- my understanding? reality? — Srap Tasmaner

Convention.

If I ask for a socket when I mean to ask for a wrench, there is indeed a difference between what the words mean and what I mean and/or want to acquire by asking. That's misspeaking. We both know what I meant to say as a result of already having a conventional understanding. The same holds good of malapropisms, prior convention makes it clear.

While I agree with Davidson that the notion of language(successful communication) being discussed is found wanting, I do not find that it is as a result of claiming that successful communication with malapropism requires convention. Rather, I find it wanting as a result of the idea that conventional/literal/prior meaning is somehow completely divorced from actual use and/or what speakers intend/mean.

I agree with him that there is no such thing as language that we first learn, and then use later. Rather, we learn by(while) using.

Set the 'kinds' of philosophy aside...

I do not see any reason to say that philosophy or philosophers cannot properly account for the current political landscape and/or the narratives/discourse. How to best govern a nation of people IS philosophy writ large.

The difficulty is, by my lights anyway, getting the right sorts of people offering the right sorts of discussion on public media outlets, and doing it often enough that it begins to affect/effect American belief in general. There are far too many irrelevant narratives.

The problem, at it's base, is that we do not have a well-informed knowledgable electorate(citizens).

And, yes, you have to learn a language before you can use it.
— Dawnstorm

Is that right?

I rather suspect we use it, regardless, and become more adept over time.

That is, learning a language and using it are the very same thing. After all, have you stoped learning English? — Banno

I would agree with Banno here. It seems that that is one of the problems within the conventional understanding Davidson is examining. Although, I'm not sure whether or not Davidson had issue with that claim. Need to go back and check on that.

Edited to add:

Yes, that's the problem with the third principle and it's inability to account for malapropisms.

The U.S. Military doesn't back him. — 180 Proof

I think that this is a crucial consideration. If only the retired generals would come out together publicly and condemn his use of military as a means for suppressing freedom of speech amongst other things such as his being a national security risk to the nation itself.

I can only hope that there are some brilliant apt professional advertising and/or political campaigning experts out there capable of flooding the airwaves with soundbites consisting of nothing more than Trump's own words...

The key is getting all the people who want Trump out to vote.

That's all it would take.

We have a major problem here in American. 1) Trump will not accept loss. 2) The Republicans will join him in this stance. 3) The Justice Department will back this any way it can. 4) His storm troopers will rush into the streets with their guns to protest. Maybe someone can add more to this grim picture? — JerseyFlight

Trump will accept loss if A.)it is too great in both popular and electoral votes to be contentious, and B.)he believes it will somehow benefit him(that it's best for him to concede/resign). A Biden pardon in private conversation used as a carrot would do the job.

I do not believe that the spineless Republicans are willing to continue feigning support of Trump if he loses by a wide margin. Rather, I suspect that there are many who would be more than willing to abandon his ship as it's sinking.

Example of recent event and the reactions to them that you find unsatisfying?

He uses "first meaning", and I'm not quite sure what that means, so that's an additional difficulty I have. — Dawnstorm

Yes. The same is true from my vantage point.

When you start out studying any of the humanities, one thing you learn pretty quickly, is none of the terms probably mean what you think they mean, and different people use them differently, so knowing roughly what sort of theoretical background to expect helps you a lot in understanding a text. That's why it matters to me that I'm not very knowledgable about the philosophy of language. I have all the caution but none of the background when it comes to interpreting the text. — Dawnstorm

Thanks for the detailed reply from which I pulled the above. I'm glad you emphasized the need to roughly know the theoretical background underwriting the writing. It's a good reminder for me personally. I'm probably still guilty at times of not quite understanding what I'm critiquing. The resident professionals hereabouts have been patient and helpful with me regarding that over the past decade. I've certainly been shown that that was the case in past.

Generally speaking, that's quite a common occurrence actually, here on this forum. Banno has a clever quip or two regarding that. I would say, and suspect you'd agree that understanding X is required in order to properly critique X; where 'X' is a position(theory) based upon a particular taxonomy/set of strict definitions.

You've certainly exercised more caution here than I, and I would most likely be well served to adopt the practice, because after having read through that paper along with the participants' comments numerous times in the last few days, I'm not so sure that I understand exactly what Davidson is getting at with "first meaning" either, although I am having a harder and harder time granting coherency to that notion.

We want a deeper notion of what words, when spoken in context, mean; and like the shallow notion of correct usage, we want the deep concept to distinguish between what a speaker, on a given occasion, means, and what his words mean. The widespread existence of malapropisms and their kin threatens the distinction, since here the intended meaning seems to take over from the standard meaning.

I take for granted, however, that nothing should be allowed to obliterate or even blur the distinction between speaker’s meaning and literal meaning. In order to preserve the distinction we must, I shall argue, modify certain commonly accepted views about what it is to ‘know a language’, or about what a natural language is. In particular, we must pry apart what is literal in language from what is conventional or established.

Here is a preliminary stab at characterizing what I have been calling literal meaning. The term is too incrusted with philosophical and other extras to do much work, so let me call what I am interested in first meaning.

Here again...

If Davidson wishes to preserve a purported distinction between what a speaker means and what their words mean then literal meaning cannot ever be what a speaker means(but it quite often is).

Because it is the case that what a speaker(or speakers) mean(s) determines convention, and conventional use establishes literal meaning, or what the words mean, then it only follows that what a speaker means also determines(or at least can determine) the literal meaning, and/or what the words mean... and there is no prying apart what is literal in language from what is conventional or established. Literal meaning is conventional use. Sometimes there is no difference whatsoever between what a speaker means and what the words mean. They are one in the same thing in such cases. Hence, the distinction is obliterated in such cases and the obliteration is due to the way language actually works.

So...

I'm not sure I can even continue here. I'm compelled more and more to reject the entire project.



Have I misunderstood something here? Do any of you find something wrong with the paragraph above beginning with "Because..."? Am I misunderstanding what I'm critiquing? I cannot see how. If it is so, then I need to be shown...





I agree with much of that last post. You also reminded me of Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" with the bits about mechanic tools. That's one of my favorite books of all time. Seems you've used a few yourself or at least have some knowledge of some of the tight spots that a wrench can successfully enter and do the job whereas a ratchet handle and socket cannot. Nice post.

Double post...

More and more

The US is not a democracy, nor ought it ever aim to be.
— creativesoul
This the argument that it's a Republic? — ssu

Well, it's a republican form of government with strong democratic tradition. But...

No. That's not an argument at all. It's a true statement.

Social cohesion and respect for people who have opposing views is important for any democracy to function... — ssu

Well... that needs quite a bit more qualification. The US is not a democracy, nor ought it ever aim to be. Mob rule denies liberty to minority. Social cohesion is as good an aim as any. Some views, however, are completely unacceptable.

And yes, the obvious elephant in the room, the economic situation, is forgotten. — ssu

Actually, I'm more than good putting the racial justice reform on the front burner and the political corruption of American government on the back. The coalition is growing.

Read the next line...

Sigh.

I would argue that there is a dedicated effort to keep the people divided in the US. — ssu

I would concur. While the issues of racial injustice and the unaccountability of law enforcement officers are problems, and I'm glad that they are being discussed more and more, they are not the only issues. The economic issues are on the back burner. Justice reform has built bridges that socioeconomic reform can walk across... the time is closer than it was ten or fifteen years ago when those underlying problems were not given any attention by the general public.

In other words, the concept of love triangles precedes the concept of triangles - our ancestor hominids probably were probably neck deep in not one but many love triangles ergo, fully in the know about love triangles before Euclid came up with a formal definition of triangles. What do you make of that? — TheMadFool

Shows that we've very different taxonomies at work.

A love triangle is not a concept, it is three people involved in sexual relations. We named those circumstances "love triangle" as a result of the similarity with the mathematical notion of a triangle.

What would you say if I told you that the Javelin represents philosophy? — MSC

That's the first thing that popped into my head... But then again, I wouldn't say that I've thrown the javelin farther than anyone.

Yet defining this an issue of either racism or income or both doesn't actually focus on the obvious and that is how police operate, how they approach their job and how the legal system protects the use of excessive force... — ssu

That's just not true. Focusing upon the need for racial injustice reform sheds light upon all sorts of things, including but not limited to, law enforcement issues like abuse of power/brutality.

It's the only reason that so many people have become painfully aware of the lack of accountability...

...the precise mathematical concept of a triangle isn't an essential part of the juicy tale of love triangles... — TheMadFool

Never said it was, nor would I. I direct you back to the first reply I offered you. Love triangle is a deviation of the mathematical concept. The latter is necessary for the former. The former is existentially dependent upon the latter.

Think oil and plastic. The relationship(existential dependency) is very similar to triangle and love triangle.

...the definition of words or phrases must be known before they can be used properly. — TheMadFool

Not true. Use determines definitions(accepted senses).

I've nothing further to say about this...

You've lost me here. I see it there as well. Again, on the left, "triangle" is the third term in the definition.

What are you looking at?

"Triangle" is in every one of those definitions!

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle.
— creativesoul

Love triangle = romance between three people.

No triangle. — TheMadFool

Look on the left side at the second word. There it is! Hence, my reply.

I have trouble understanding Davidson notion of first meaning in the first place. This is one of the places where I wonder whether I'd have better understanding if I was more knowledgable about the philosophy of language. But I come from linguistics, and this feels like a mess. What you've been pointing out is part of it, but I don't necessarily think he's being inconsistent. I just don't get that entire part. — Dawnstorm

Interesting that you're from a linguistics background. I'm curious to know what you think about the adequacy and/or sufficiency of the three principles proposed for successful communication/interpretation.



I've no letters at all after my name, nor do I have any academic training(officially anyway). I do, however, have a persistent interest in the subject matter, because of my strong interest in thought and belief itself and the role that meaning plays.

I do not necessarily think Davidson's being inconsistent either. I do think that he's mistaken about some basics of all meaning though as is shown by his being wrong about his notion of first meaning not being limited to linguistic meaning.

Where's triangle in your definition of love triangle? — TheMadFool

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle.

...the concept of triangles is no longer necessary to understand what love triangles are. — TheMadFool

Only if love triangles can be existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of triangles and the latter not be necessary for the former. The meaning of "love triangle" is derived from the meaning of "triangle". The latter is necessary for the very existence of the former, which is in turn necessary for any understanding thereof.

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations. While that notion is itself existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of a triangle, it does not represent a misuse or incorrect use of the term "triangle". There is more than one accepted use/sense of the term "triangle", and each is correct if and when used in the appropriate circumstances.

That ought tell you something here about how the circumstances themselves are pivotal to what determines "correct" use/meaning.

The officials in charge of those investigations are in the positions they hold for the very specific reasons that such institutions were first created. Trump has done everything in his power to remove and/or replace those officials. Sessions would not do it. Barr has.

Oversight and accountability measures are the only means we have to prevent too much power from being in too few peoples' hands(abuse of power). That is required in order to uphold one basic principle underwriting the birth of the nation itself; Liberty. The division of power in the federal government is required and designed specifically for the preservation of liberty of the minority(and/or smaller states). That need to separate the powers was so carefully considered immediately after the Revolutionary War, that it resulted in the formation and/or continuation of the Continental Congress in the years prior to the drafting of actual Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights.



You speak here as if those investigations have been allowed proceed uninhibited and/or unobstructed. They most certainly have not.

So, to directly answer your question...

As soon as Trump stops obstructing justice and getting away with it, I'll gladly accept whatever the findings turn out to be. As long as Trump does everything in his power to impede any and all investigations into himself and/or his friends and allies, the charge of "political persecution" is a distraction. A rhetorical device meant to discredit the investigations themselves.

That's another well-established pattern of Trump's behaviour, by the way. The deliberate aim to discredit any and all who disagree with him and publicly speak about it, simply because they do.

I smell a Biden pardon, and suspect it will be framed as a means to move forward and past these issues that have divided our nation. Framing it all as a means to bring the nation closer together, and possibly avoid the civil unrest brewing amongst armed civilians who've been convinced to be angry at all the wrong people for a very long time.

I could be wrong about the pardon.

How could a once-used convention serve as a justification?
— Banno

Justification? For what? (I think I missed a convo somewhere). — StreetlightX

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that that comment related to Davidson'a suggestion regarding the need for dropping appeals to convention as a means to illuminate how we communicate. If one time use counts, there would be no need to drop such appeals. For we could appeal to convention each and every time if a one-time use counted.

Malapropism would not be problematic for such a definition of "convention". It would be an ad hoc correction though, and basically be contrary to convention at the time...

Wouldn't it?

What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...

When language use is already being practiced, the above is a fine thing to say...

However, with the creation of convention and hence, the very beginnings/origen of language use, as well as all successful communication involving language thereafter...

The speaker and the listener need only draw correlations between the same(or similar enough) things; one of which are the actual expressions of the speaker, and another would be <roughly> what the speaker aimed to do and/or achieve by virtue of expression.

That honors looking to use to 'find' meaning...

No. What we've learned is that Trump is getting away with doing everything in his power to stop any and all investigations into him. What I hope is that he loses, because then he will no longer have that power...

I've just noticed something about Davidson's notion of first meaning.

The concept applies to words and sentences as uttered by a particular speaker on a particular occasion. But if the occasion, the speaker, and the audience are ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ (in a sense not to be further explained here), then the first meaning of an utterance will be what should be found by consulting a dictionary based on actual usage (such as Webster’s Third). Roughly speaking, first meaning comes first in the order of interpretation...

[snip]

...Because a speaker necessarily intends first meaning to be grasped by his audience, and it is grasped if communication succeeds, we lose nothing in the investigation of first meaning if we concentrate on the knowledge or ability a hearer must have if he is to interpret a speaker. What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...


[snip]


...Nothing said so far limits first meaning to language; what has been characterised is (roughly) Grice’s non-natural meaning, which applies to any sign or signal with an intended interpretation. What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?

The first part of the first sentence in the last paragraph above ends with a semi-colon and amounts to an obvious falsehood. This is more readily understood when we look at the first paragraph above. That paragraph sets out a clear case of language use replete with words, sentences, speaker intentions, audience interpretations, a standard bearer(convention), along with all that dictionaries(the standard bearer) themselves require. Clearly, that entire example describes a situation that cannot happen, be realized, be instantiated, and/or otherwise take place(etc.) unless language use has long since been.

It also sets up the following question...

What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?

This question only makes sense if first meaning has not already been limited to language by Davidson himself. But it has.

While malapropisms may question the conventional understanding of what counts as a language as set out by the three principles, and constitute ground for rejecting the third outright, it seems that novel first time successful communication and the convention that results from repetition is ground for rejecting all three as first meanings, although the notion of prior theory remains undisturbed.

I think it(the single novel use) speaks to how convention gets started. The three principles in question seem inadequate for that task as well as malapropisms.

What counts as "convention" could be altered ad hoc, I suppose, and doing so may save the standard description of linguistic competence under consideration(by definitional fiat). But as it pertains to what successful communication(interpretation) requires, the success of the single novel use shows us that rigid strict rules are necessary but need not be followed. In the case of malapropisms, convention is necessary as a base for what Davidson calls a prior theory only to be modified at the time of utterance.

Edited to strike out something that I've realized isn't quite right. I realize that it results in difficulty of translating the rest, but hopefully you understand. I meant just malapropisms, and not single novel use, per se. Those, I think are a much different animal then malapropisms.

I think that perhaps the more important take away is the single(novel) use aspect.