It's very simple, "use" implies intent. There is no "using" without intent. — Metaphysician Undercover
"The only way we have to judge whether a person followed a rule or not is to judge whether the person behaved as intended.". It is important, I think, to stress (as you have done in your post) that a single person's intent does not make a rule. — Isaac
What does a yellow traffic light mean? If one's answer is based on observed practice he might conclude that it means to speed up to get through the light before it changes to red. This, however, is not its intended meaning, which is to proceed with caution. It's intended meaning is set by law. — Fooloso4
The amber light means what it means to the community of light-users. — Isaac
It's meaning (which is what matters philosophically) is its current use. — Isaac
it is probably worth considering what determines the meaning of 'meaning'. — unenlightened
Because that is the standard that was set up and enforced. — Fooloso4
Yes, but how does their setting up a standard and legally enforcing it make it 'mean'? — Isaac
The conversation doesn't make sense. — Isaac
Are you asking what makes a standard a standard? Its general acceptance by the community. — Fooloso4
Meaning is not monolithic. What a traffic sign means as a matter of law may not be what it means in the rules of a race. Different activity, different rules. — Fooloso4
Right, so if 'the community' dynamically evolve a standard which differs from that of the people who created or instigated the lights, then that is what the meaning is, not the intent of the instigator. — Isaac
Acceptance by the community is the final arbiter, and if the community say amber means 'rush to get through' then that's what amber means. — Isaac
Community acceptance. So it is not correct to say that the meaning of an amber light is determined by the law-makers. — Isaac
It may or may not be depending on how law abiding the community is. They could theoretically ignore their wishes completely. — Isaac
so it is simple to say that the communities accepted use determines meaning — Isaac
The intent is to regulate the flow of traffic. That does not change even if the standard by which the flow of traffic is regulated changes. To use one of Wittgenstein's tribe examples, a colorblind tribe would not have color coded traffic lights. They would have some other standard, but the intent would still be to regulate the flow of traffic. — Fooloso4
If it becomes the law then that is what it will mean. — Fooloso4
In a community governed by law the community accepts the law or attempts to change it. — Fooloso4
This does not mean that intent plays no role in the practice. It is not as if traffic lights came first and then the community decided what the meaning of these lights would be. — Fooloso4
I didn't say the intent would change or go away, I said the meaning would no longer be related to it. — Isaac
the intent of the wider community might just be to get to work on time. — Isaac
So you keep saying, but I've yet to see how. I get that the law becomes what it means if the community assents to using it that way, but then it is the community's assent which causes meaning. — Isaac
No, it absolutely doesn't, people break the law all the time and it doesn't mean that they have declined to be governed by law in general. It just means that law is only seen as set of proscription, not the final word on the meaning of life. — Isaac
Traffic lights came first (with the intention of controlling traffic flow) — Isaac
then the community learns the pattern (amber indicates its about to turn red), and derives a meaning (rush to get through) depending entirely on it form of life, not on the original intention of those who made the lights. — Isaac
MU seemed to have raised the zombie of personal intent creating the rule again with the ambiguous "The only way we have to judge whether a person followed a rule or not is to judge whether the person behaved as intended.". It is important, I think, to stress (as you have done in your post) that a single person's intent does not make a rule. I realise we haven't yet reached the private language argument, but things have once or twice seemed to be heading down that dead end. — Isaac
The intent is to regulate the flow of traffic. That does not change even if the standard by which the flow of traffic is regulated changes. To use one of Wittgenstein's tribe examples, a colorblind tribe would not have color coded traffic lights. They would have some other standard, but the intent would still be to regulate the flow of traffic. — Fooloso4
I don't see intent having such a leading role. Imagine a sign actually being made and put in place. Who really intends for the pointy end to point to Dublin? I doubt very much if anyone involved actually does, they just do. If anyone really has an intent, it would be to get paid. — Isaac
132. We want to establish an order in our knowledge of the use
of language: an order with a particular end in view; one out of many
possible orders; not the order. To this end we shall constantly be
giving prominence to distinctions which our ordinary forms of
language easily make us overlook. This may make it look as if we
saw it as our task to reform language.
Such a reform for particular practical purposes, an improvement in
our terminology designed to prevent misunderstandings in practice,
is perfectly possible. But these are not the cases we have to do with.
The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine
idling, not when it is doing work.
133. It is not our aim to refine or complete the system of rules for
the use of our words in unheard-of ways.
For the clarity that we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But
this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely
disappear.
The real discovery is the one that makes me capable of stopping
doing philosophy when I want to.—The one that gives philosophy
peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself
in question.—Instead, we now demonstrate a method, by examples;
and the series of examples can be broken off.—Problems are solved
(difficulties eliminated), not a single problem.
There is not a philosophical method, though there are indeed
methods, like different therapies.
Notice, he has not really dismissed "striving for the ideal". Our aim is complete clarity, which will make philosophical problems disappear. But now the philosophical problems have become much more complicated because we have to deal with "serves the purpose", and therefore intention. There is not one "purpose", but a complex, and philosophy takes the characteristics of therapy. — Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
The problem here is that only individual people have intent. We can generalize, take a vote or something, and say it is "the will of the people" or some such thing, but to say that numerous people have the "same" intent is very sketchy, and highly improbable. — Metaphysician Undercover
It would make more sense to say that it's God's intent — Metaphysician Undercover
If it points to Dublin, then it is the person who planted it, who intended it to point that way. I don't see how you could think that the person who planted the sign just planted it randomly without intending to have it point the way that it does, regardless of whether or not that person was getting paid to plant it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Really? Why do you think it's 'sketchy' the London Marathon is run by a few thousand people each year, I think it's pretty safe to say they all at least have in common he intent to run as much as they are able along the set route. Unless you're going to get into some totally unnecessary sorties paradox, I don't see the problem with saying these people all have the same intent. — Isaac
Well. If you seriously think it would make more sense to say that it is the intent of a supernatural being who created a billion planets only to populate one of them, mostly with bacteria, but with one species whose main purpose it seems is to sing to him on Sunday, then you clearly have a very different definition of 'sense' to me. — Isaac
I've seen signs hung the wrong way round. — Isaac
Different runners run the marathon for different reasons, I've seen them interviewed. So I don't see any common intent there. — Metaphysician Undercover
It makes more sense to say that a being who is assumed to have intention has intention (even if that being is fictional), than it does to say that a thing which is known not to have intention has intention. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, "wrong way round" implies that a mistake was made. Now who would you hold responsible for the sign being hung the wrong way around? Unless the sign-hanger was instructed to hang it that way, the responsibility for that mistake rests on the sign hanger. — Metaphysician Undercover
There's a lot said by Wittgenstein in the upcoming section 137-200, about what you might call the "unthinkingly" way of doing things. I'm going to read that section again, and take some notes. I'll get back to you on this subject, perhaps we can discuss it further. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are discussing the meaning of signs, yes? Signs in the broad sense of the word, as in symbols or structures to which people respond in a manner not directly resultant from the physical form of the object. A signpost was one example, the amber traffic light another. — Isaac
Yes, but how does their setting up a standard and legally enforcing it make it 'mean'? — Isaac
The meaning of the sign is the message contained in its structure. — Isaac
To say their meaning with further signs (such as ostension or samples) becomes circular, hence the conclusion that our form of life teaches us how to respond. — Isaac
So, are you actually interested in the position I'm holding, or are we just going back to the same pissing contest which has dogged this thread thus far for the prize of sitting in the 'teacher's chair'? — Isaac
What they assented to is the law. And that does not mean the law that yellow means caution but assent to the establishment and enforcement of law, which includes traffic laws, which include use caution when the light is yellow. — Fooloso4
It is not our form of life that teaches us how to respond, but rather what we are taught as part of our form of life. And this happens in a variety of different ways - training, explanation, following the example of others, and so on. — Fooloso4
As to the position you are holding, I cannot say if I am actually interested in that position until I know what it is. As of now, I do not know what that position is. — Fooloso4
This is the kind of condescending comment I was referring to. Have I really given the impression that I'm not at least fairly well versed in Wittgenstein? — Isaac
As to the position you are holding, I cannot say if I am actually interested in that position until I know what it is. As of now, I do not know what that position is.
— Fooloso4
A fact which doesn't surprise me as you haven't even asked yet — Isaac
I am not here to solicit opinions. — Fooloso4
We simply cannot proceed with any investigation if we hold such a high standard for 'the same'. We cannot talk about anything, because all terms are artificial groupings of things which are only similar, not truly 'the same'. In order to show the relevance of what you're saying here you'd need a supporting argument as to why the level of similarity in intent I'm referring to was not acceptable for the type of investigation this is. — Isaac
Suppose "pi" defines the perfect circle. Do you think that striving to resolve the exact mathematical value of pi would be a case of striving after the ideal? We all think that pi has no end, and to prove that it has no end is a fruitless task, like proving infinite has no end. But what if someone found the end? — Metaphysician Undercover
And this in turn leads to Witty's critique of the idea that a word's meaning is separable from a word's use: "As if the meaning were an aura the word brings along with it and retains in every kind of use." Which, is some sense, follows analytically from the equation of meaning and use that Witty's attempted to establish (if meaning is use, it obviously cannot be otherwise than that use). — StreetlightX
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.