It seems to me that what he means is that language is composed of sensory impressions. Language is just sounds and visual scribbles - sensory impressions."Similarly, in Philosophical Investigations he rejects the theory that we might have developed a language for reporting our sensations without the help of the language in which we describe the external world, on the ground that such a language would fail to meet a requirement that must be met by any language."
Where I am lost is, I can't tell apart the language used for reporting our sensations and language in which we describe the external world. — yonlee
Folks sometimes talk of the sensation of red, ''what it is is like to see the redness of something", and in talking of such one is, as it were, pointing inwards to oneself rather than outwards. But the first requirement for the development of a language is that it be shared, and thus about what is shared. Thus it must begin with the external; not the sensation of red, but the distinction between red stuff and green stuff. First we have to agree that this is a red bus, and that is a green bus, and only then can we start to say stuff like, 'I like red buses, green is dull'. — unenlightened
I'm just wondering. How does one access the external? — TheMadFool
After all isn't it true that we only know what our senses (including our minds) provide us? — TheMadFool
How am I ever going to confirm that my red is exactly what your red is? — TheMadFool
How am I ever going to confirm that my red is exactly what your red is? It's impossible. — TheMadFool
because red is the colour of fire-engines, not the colour of fire-engine-sensations. — unenlightened
"Similarly, in Philosophical Investigations he rejects the theory that we might have developed a language for reporting our sensations without the help of the language in which we describe the external world, on the ground that such a language would fail to meet a requirement that must be met by any language."
Where I am lost is, I can't tell apart the language used for reporting our sensations and language in which we describe the external world. — yonlee
The question might then become why we ever looked inside for meaning? — sign
If you don't look inside then you have to claim things such as the sentence I quoted above literally contain or are doing meaning. How could that be, though? Just what would meaning amount to re a set of pixel activations, say? Just how would pixels refer to anything? — Terrapin Station
But further consideration shows that this doesn't make sense as the last word. The isolated subject gazing on pure signifieds (concepts apart from phonemes) and pure sensations is itself a product of embodied meanings (signs, words in context) and an enworlded community. — sign
It is the beetle in the box, that drops out of the conversation because nothing can be said about it even to oneself. — unenlightened
No idea what this is saying. — Terrapin Station
The thought of meaning apart from all public signs is problematic. The thought of the pure subject who experiences pure meanings apart from all public signs is problematic. — sign
Aside from strongly disliking the word "pure" there (partially because I have no idea what it's adding), why is that problematic? — Terrapin Station
It is the beetle in the box, that drops out of the conversation because nothing can be said about it even to oneself.
— unenlightened
But, it can be shown. — Wallows
The living sign is something like a unity of signified and signifier. — sign
The four letters S-I-G-N are just letters in themselves. In German we would use the letters Z-E-I-C-H-E-N for approximately the same purpose. So we might think of or postulate the 'meaning' of sign 'behind' both 'sign' and 'Zeichen.'
But do we have an experience of this 'pure' signified apart from its signifiers?
We are admittedly directed away from the merely arbitrary
toward a stable meaning 'behind' every arbitrary meaning-vehicle.
I interpret this is a social desire
, connected to the ideal subject
as the space of the signified.
I think what sign is saying is that every subject (i.e. person) is an essential part of the process of meaning and signification and, to that extent, transform their own nature in accordance not only with the signs/meanings they use, but in accordance with the very process of signification itself. — Mentalusion
the process and nature of signification as a linguistic phenomenon can offer insights into the process and nature of the world itself — Mentalusion
In other words, an important aspect of the world itself is that it is by nature intentional.
But sign can correct me if that's not barking up the right tree. — Mentalusion
I'm stumped why you'd use the word "living" there. I don't know what it's supposed to amount to re "what's really going on" when we're talking about signs, signifieds/signifiers/etc.
I have little notion of what "a unity of signified and signifier" would amount to, or what "something like" that unity would amount to. — Terrapin Station
I'll do my best to focus on this. Is the distinction of the signfied from the signifier ever perfect? A related question is whether the distinction of the subject from the world is ever perfect. — sign
A final question is whether the thought of the isolated ego — sign
I have no idea what a distinction being "perfect" would amount to. — Terrapin Station
"Thought of the isolated ego"? You might as well be typing to me in Swahili.
I wish you could write a sentence that I'm not stumped about. — Terrapin Station
The point is whether you can do something like perfectly cut the sign's meaning from its material 'body.' — sign
It's just like it's not possible for others to perform the act of "translating" sheet music, say, into an instrumental performance for you. That's something you have to do. — Terrapin Station
it's also not that you're constantly thinking, "I'm translating these marks into a musical performance on this instrument." — Terrapin Station
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.