If I go outside, or look out the window, I will see rain.How did you understand ''it's raining''? Can you describe what it is that you apprehend from it? — TheMadFool
But we already get the "at this time" from "is", which makes it redundant. So "time" would be your reference in "at this time it's raining"?If someone tells me ''it's raining'' then I would take it as ''at this time it's raining''. The speaker, because it's obvious, doesn't mention ''at this time''. This is how I understand the phrase ''it's raining''. The reference is there. — TheMadFool
How can something be understandable without reference? What does it mean to "understand" in your book?Why not? I already gave an example of and understandable sentence where no reference is completed. "it's raining". What does the "it" refer to? Nothing. — Purple Pond
Exactly. Why would you look out the window, or go outside, instead of look in the refrigerator or pour a glass of water? Because the state of affairs that the sentence refers to is outside and not in the kitchen.If I go outside, or look out the window, I will see rain. — Purple Pond
Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning.How can something be understandable without reference? What does it mean to "understand" in your book? — Harry Hindu
No it doesn't. The weather or "the states of affairs", is the rain. It cannot perform the raining."It" refers to the state of affairs - the conditions outside - the weather. — Harry Hindu
How about nothing?What else would it be referring to? — Harry Hindu
It depends on the context. Most of the time the speaker means that you'll need an umbrella to go outside or you will get wet.What do you mean when you say, "It is raining"? What information are you trying to relay? — Harry Hindu
The information is redundant because I already know that it is raining, not the sentence. The sentence is fine.If I were to look out the window and see that it is raining and you tell me that it is raining - wouldn't that be redundant since I already see that it is raining? How can the statement, "it is raining" be redundant if the statement doesn't refer to anything? — Harry Hindu
No you're not. You're translating the meaning of the sentence.Also, when translating languages, what is it that you are translating? What the words refer to. — Harry Hindu
So the "it" in "it's raining" refers to outside?Exactly. Why would you look out the window, or go outside, instead of look in the refrigerator or pour a glass of water? Because the state of affairs that the sentence refers to is outside and not in the kitchen. — Harry Hindu
Can you answer this question? "Planet Earth is blue" refers to what?
A: Earth.
B: Planet Earth being blue.
C: Other. — Purple Pond
Why are you answering a question with a question? What do you mean by "understand" and "meaning"?Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning. — Purple Pond
The rain is a type of weather.The weather or "the states of affairs", is the rain. It cannot perform the raining. — Purple Pond
What is the information? You keep using these words without the slightest idea about what they mean and how they all relate together. I think you need to define, "understand", "know", "meaning", and "information" and see where we stand once you do that.The information is redundant because I already know that it is raining, not the sentence. The sentence is fine. — Purple Pond
Understanding is knowing. Knowing is having a set of rules for interpreting sensory data. — Harry Hindu
Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning. — Purple Pond
I'd wonder what Purple Pond would have in mind with meaning that doesn't involve reference in any manner. — Terrapin Station
One can understand that touching fire causes pain even if the one in question is language less. Meaning is attributed within the experience. The creature draws a correlation between it's behaviour and what happened immediately afterwards, The creature learned something, and by doing so, attributed meaning to the act and the fire. The fire became meaningful and/or significant to the creature after the connection was made between touching it and the pain that ensued. The creature attributed/recognized causality.
So, not all meaning involves reference, and not all understanding is of something that is already meaningful. — creativesoul
Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.”
What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual language structures? — Mww
I’m of the mind that mental acts are images, and meaning is prior to language, insofar as meaning is merely a judgement on conceptual referents presented to it by reason.
On the other hand, if Fodor is right, meaning won’t be prior to language, at least of the mental variety. Then we’d have to determine if the mental variety is different than the overall objective variety, such that meaning could still be prior to one but simultaneous with or a consequence of the other. — Mww
I'd say that the meaning they're performing re fire and pain includes a reference to pain. But I don't think of reference as necessarily linguistic in the sense of having to utter a word. — 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.