How can mere words be about anything? For example, when I say, "the cat is on the mat", I'm talking about the cat being on the mat. The statement is about a state of affairs. — Purple Pond

This is not true. When you state "the cat is on the mat" here, you are posting that phrase up as an example. I really don't believe that you are saying anything about any cat on any mat.

I'm talking hypothetically. It refers to a hypothetical state of affairs. Does that make sense?

You could read your observation the opposite way.
Why does it is take so little to refer to something?
Whether a description is true or not is a function of what one is trying to keep in view.
Maybe the capacity for us to talk past each other is greater than any narrative that forces us to accept the same starting places.

How can mere words be about anything? — Purple Pond

Because that's what we do with them.

How does a screwdriver fit so neatly into the head of a screw?

I'm talking hypothetically. It refers to a hypothetical state of affairs. Does that make sense? — Purple Pond

OK, but it's an example which you posted for some purpose. So the point is, the phrase you posted "the cat is on the mat", is not really about any cat or any mat at all, it's about some sort of demonstration you're trying to make.

I remember from my first teaching gig in 1968 using 'programmed learning' for adult literacy that "The cat is on the mat.". It used simple line drawings showing the cat on the mat, the rat has a hat, and ants without pants. From what memory in your head did you choose "The cat is on the mat"?

In any case, the statement "The rat has a hat." might be true, or it might be false. How would I know from the context of that one sentence? The cat/mat nexus is valid only if the cat actually is on the mat.

As to cats and mats, words refer by triggering memories in a brain. My adult learners who did not know how to read did not register the sentence as meaningful--hence the line drawings... cats sitting on mats, rats with hats, ants without pants. You see or hear the words, the auditory/visual/speech system processes them, and voila! a cat is on the mat. If you see the words "кот на ковре" the words will refer to nothing. Unless you speak Russian.

So the point is, the phrase you posted "the cat is on the mat", is not really about any cat or any mat at all, it's about some sort of demonstration you're trying to make. — Metaphysician Undercover

The statement is about some hypothetical cat on a mat. But the point was to make a demonstration about words being about things. There's a difference between a statement and a point.

So if words are about things, what sort of a thing is a hypothetical cat?

I'm not sure. Perhaps an idea.

If a fellow tries to fix his phone he finds that it is not so simple: Philips, blade, 5 point, tri-wing... etc. -- several special varieties to foil the drive to screw Apple or Huawei out of a fucking fixit fee.

That's to prevent dolts from going in there and doing irreparable damage. (I'll advocate for you too -- for a fee.)

:wink:

Yes - like jargon, marking who is in and who is out, with those who are out unable to look after themselves.

I found one of those special ten-inch long hex keys that was needed to reach the screws on the original macintosh case the other day. It's really just a bent bit of coat hanger wire with some bits filed off it. Think I paid $10 for it, in the early 90's.

I still have my 1988 Mac Plus in the basement. Lovely thing it was, with the coat hanger tool to open the case, should one want to expand RAM, for instance, as one would since it the original's RAM was something like 1 megabyte. It didn't even have a hard drive--sold separately. But it was, never the less, amazing.

Back to @Purple Pond's Aboutness of language...

The question is too obvious. As you said, it's like supposing there is a mystery to a screw driver.

Doesn't a lie/falsehood refer to something too? It refers to fictitious events or objects but the reference is there, isn't it?

What about nonsense? Nonsensical sentences don't refer hence the name ''nonsense''.


I don't think language is about truth per se. It's about expression - truth, falsehood and nonsense.

But it was, never the less, amazing. — Bitter Crank

Yes, remember when the OS and MS Word would fit on an 512kb floppy?

Words are eternal. Spoken word that is. When we speak, the words are etched in time and the meaning is shown in the act (context) of speech.

How can mere words be about anything? . . . How do words refer? I — Purple Pond

It's a mental activity. Aboutness/reference are a way that we think. So in other words it's something that brains can do. It's a set of processual properties that brains can perform.

At that, it's not the case that everyone performs these mental activities in the same ways for the same words, sentences, etc.

You can talk about common ways that it works, but you can't make correct universal statements about it (about reference, meaning, etc.)

Doesn't a lie/falsehood refer to something too? It refers to fictitious events or objects but the reference is there, isn't it? — TheMadFool

If a statement refers to a fictitious event, then it's true. If I say 'harry potter wears glasses', what I say is true. The problem is, the perpetrator of a lie isn't referring to a fictitious event, that is to say, he isn't telling the truth about a fictitious event. He's telling falsehoods about supposedly real events.

What about nonsense? Nonsensical sentences don't refer hence the name ''nonsense''. — TheMadFool

Nonsensical statements aren't true.

Doesn't a lie/falsehood refer to something too? It refers to fictitious events or objects but the reference is there, isn't it? — TheMadFool

We do not only refer to objects, we also refer to subjects (matters to be discussed). When it is a subject which is referred to, truth or fiction is irrelevant to the reference.

How do words refer? I would say solely on the virtue of being true. 'The cat is on the mat' refers to the cat being on the mat because the statement that 'the cat is on the mat', is true. Take any statement and ask yourself does it refer to anything? If it's true, then it refers. If it isn't true, then it doesn't. — Purple Pond

''Harry Potter has a glass eye'' isn't a true statement but it's about/refers to Harry Potter. So, reference/aboutness can occur without truth.

"The Harry Potter" part of the sentence refers to the fictional character Harry Potter, but taking the sentence as a whole, "Harry Potter has a glass eye" unsuccessfully refers to Harry Potter having a glass eye.

So if words are about things, what sort of a thing is a hypothetical cat? — Metaphysician Undercover

My guess is that it would be a hypothetical cat.

Sure, it's what brains do.

But take care not to make the mistake of thinking brains can do this by themselves. Using words requires a community.

''Harry Potter has a glass eye'' isn't a true statement but it's about/refers to Harry Potter. So, reference/aboutness can occur without truth. — TheMadFool

Of course Harry Potter wears glasses. And "Harry Potter wears glasses" is true if and only if Harry Potter wears glasses.

Therefore it is true that Harry Potter wears glasses.

So this reference does involve truth.

So, reference is impossible without truth according to you?

Then ''about'' and ''refer'' aren't equivalent.

''Jesus was Chinese'' is about Jesus but, according to you, fails to refer to Jesus since it's a falsehood.

Also, we can make sense of ''Jesus was a Chinese'' can't we? If yes, and I think yes, then how is that possible without the statement referring to something?

What about nonsense? ''square root of Tuesday'' is nonsense because it doesn't refer to anything and so is incomprehensible.

At a minimum there must be some difference between 1. Truth, 2. Falsehood and 3. Nonsense
I think:
1. Truth: True reference
2. False: False reference
3. Nonsense: No reference

So, reference is impossible without truth according to you? — TheMadFool

According to the theory in the OP, yes. However, I'm not obliged to stick to the thesis in the OP. I can change my mind.

Jesus was Chinese'' is about Jesus but, according to you, fails to refer to Jesus since it's a falsehood. — TheMadFool

Jesus was Chinese is a falsehood about Jesus. According to the OP that sentence has no referent because it isn't true, but I'm not sure anymore. It may well refer to Jesus, and ascribe false properties to him.

Also, we can make sense of ''Jesus was a Chinese'' can't we? If yes, and I think yes, then how is that possible without the statement referring to something? — TheMadFool

I think you are conflating meaning with reference. What is the justification that they are the same?

What about nonsense? ''square root of Tuesday'' is nonsense because it doesn't refer to anything and so is incomprehensible. — TheMadFool

I don't think it has any meaning, but not because it doesn't refer.

So, reference is impossible without truth according to you? — TheMadFool

Not I.

Well, unless you can show me how that follows from what I have said...

@Banno I construe refer is the simple act of pointing. When I say ''Jesus was a Chinese'' I point to the subject-predicate of ''Jesus'' and ''is Chinese''. There's no truth in the statement but the reference/pointing occurs nonetheless. If we take the satement ''Jesus was a Jew'' then this too is reference because, again, I point to the subject-predicate of ''Jesus'' and ''is Jew''. One of the statements is true and the other false.

This truth value evaluation can only occur if the referring is complete beforehand. The process of referring, must occur earlier than truth value evaluation. Without the referring first we can't know the truth value of propositions.

So, reference can occur without truth. In fact it must occur before we can come to the truth.

But take care not to make the mistake of thinking brains can do this by themselves. — Banno

It's a mistake to think they can't, rather. Wittgenstein was wrong (about most things).

And re meaning, it's a mental phenomenon only. Language isn't normally a mental or individual phenomenon only, but It's not impossible for it to be.

I construe refer is the simple act of pointing. — TheMadFool

You can refer to things without pointing. It's one of the wonderful things about language. But let's take your definition anyways.

When I say ''Jesus was a Chinese'' I point to the subject-predicate of ''Jesus'' and ''is Chinese''. — TheMadFool

How do you point to "is Chinese"? Predicates are are descriptions of subjects we already referred to.
When you say Jesus is Chinese, you are not referring to a Chinese person, rather you are ascribing Chineseness to the referent Jesus.

This truth value evaluation can only occur if the referring is complete beforehand. The process of referring, must occur earlier than truth value evaluation. Without the referring first we can't know the truth value of propositions. — TheMadFool

I think this is false and is based on the assumption that you also refer to the predicates in the sentence, besides the subject. There's a difference between referring to and ascribing.

Taken in parts, the only part of the sentence refers is the subject. Taken as a whole, the sentence refers to a state of affairs, only if true.

So, reference can occur without truth. In fact it must occur before we can come to the truth. — TheMadFool

I agree.that reference can occur without truth. The last sentence I'm not convinced of yet.