Once a language has only one speaker, it has become effectively private and thus useless for communication. It only becomes meaningful again when someone else learns it, and likewise the lost ancient writing has only the potential for meaning until it is deciphered. — unenlightened
So, can I ask what timescale you apply to this approach? — Isaac
Nevertheless, I shall regard anyone who bandies "Tartuffery" about as a pathetic poseur until the play has be revived and adapted for television. — unenlightened
so long as we're clear. — Isaac
But are we clear? Specifically, are we clear about what it means to be clear?
This is a game we can play forever, to pick on a word, and make it the crucial piece in the game. We are only finished when we stop — unenlightened
there is no standard measure unless we invent one for our own convenience. — unenlightened
And since I do not find it convenient, I refuse to accept your suggestion that my rhetorical flourishes be the measure of anything. You may think you have your answer, but I think I have refused to answer, and I think those two together mean we are not clear. — unenlightened
so whilst the above is self-evidently true, it's not really worth writing publicly unless you want to actually discuss it. — Isaac
Anyway, from what I can see of your response I don’t see any clear differentiation between “use” and “meaning”. You can be perched on a tree-stump and I may say “Get out of my chair!” and be perfectly understood. — I like sushi
'm not gonna get into the empirical evidence game — emancipate
Shame you limit philosophy in such a way. — emancipate
I have some sympathy with this, though I disagree.I'll try and explain."Use" does not seem to capture all of what meaning is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, I know, but next time you need a doctor I bet you'll go see one who has empirical evidence rather than ask your mate what they reckon is wrong with you. When you want a bridge built you go to an engineer who has empirical evidence that their design works, not just some guy who reckons his design might hold up.
You already admit in everyday life that empirical evidence, where it is possible to obtain it, is better than guesswork, so why abandon it in philosophy? — Isaac
Your second paragraph assumes we should shoehorn metaphysics into an empiricist way of thinking, when that is merely one way for us to approach experience. — emancipate
How many contradicting articles did you reject first? — emancipate
Anyway, I was not referring to neuroscience. — emancipate
And the same kind of thing goes on here at TPF. Someone asks 'is X racist?' And we have a discussion about the exact scope of the term 'racist' as if there is a truth of the matter independent of how we decide to use it. And there is such a truth, but it is only the truth of how the wider community happens to use it and how it and its root-words have been used by the community in the past. Ha, see what I did there? Root - racine - race. And so to a discussion of the tree of life, root and branch of the family/ tribe/nation, and the notion of inheritance... until we are satisfied that we have the fullness of understanding of all the possibilities of 'racism'. But there is no truth of meaning beyond the way a word is used... — unenlightened
The true nature of "meaning" is to be found in these meaningful relationships, not in the use of words. The use of words just facilitates meaningful relationships. — Metaphysician Undercover
But your example is infelicitous. Of course if one uses different words to act in a different manner the relationship and the meaning will be different. And an inflection can turn the same word(s) from a question into a command with very different meaning because different use, and the meaning of the inflection is conventional too. — unenlightened
So when one says 'meaning is use', it is saying that the scope of what is and is not a chair is set by the ways in which the word is used in the community, and not set by any property of the object, nor by the use one makes of the object, (doll's houses have chairs), nor by any property of the sound or sight of the word. — unenlightened
So if one says "please kind sir be so good as to vacate my inconsistency. for it is precious to me" one is liable to get a puzzled look and not the restoration of one's favourite stump, because 'inconsistency' doesn't mean anything like 'stump'. 'Chair' would work, or 'seat' or probably 'place'. and the work it does , the use, is to convey to, not to manipulate the other. If the response is 'No it's my turn on the stump', the words have still done their job. — unenlightened
I do not behave in a kind and considerate way because it is of some sort of use to me. To the contrary, if I took time to think about what was more useful to me, and behaved in that way, I'd be more deceitful and cheating. — Metaphysician Undercover
No they mustn't. I use words to convey meaning and the meaning of the words is the use to which they are put.. Words have no use but to convey meaning, and no meaning apart from the use to which they are put. Meaningless words are useless and convey nothing.Now you say that we use words to convey something. What is conveyed? The use of words, and the thing conveyed must be two distinct things if we use words to convey something. It cannot be meaning which is conveyed if meaning is the use itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, but using words is not the same as "meaning" because meaningful relations exist where words are not used. — Metaphysician Undercover
I do not behave in a kind and considerate way because it is of some sort of use to me. To the contrary, if I took time to think about what was more useful to me, and behaved in that way, I'd be more deceitful and cheating. — Metaphysician Undercover
P.S. I have not technically returned; just not suffering the anticipated effects of treatment yet. — Luke
You are conflating "meaning" and "meaningful". Words have meaning, they do not have meaningful. And although words can be meaningful, they do not have "meaningful relations" which "exist where words are not used". — Luke
Your use of "use" here has a meaning of personal benefit, such as that it is useful to you. This is a different meaning to Wittgenstein's use of "use" which has a meaning of employment, such as that it has a shared use by the speakers of a community. — Luke
There is always some way in which something can be misunderstood. MU seems intent on demonstrating that — Fooloso4
Is understanding not what we are aiming for when we use words? — Metaphysician Undercover
There is meaning in meaningful relations, that's why they're meaningful. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.