The interpretation is the way it sounds when he hears it, the way it moves his tongue as he articulates, the reaction of his doting parent, the way he feels when he sees his parents reaction. — emancipate
. It is later that he learns to associate words with things, but the initial experience is full of interpretation. — emancipate
How do you experience reality, but through a filter that allows you to make meaning (interpret) of it all? Meaning is not just linguistic. — emancipate
You experience the car horn which startles you and then you retrospectively apply analysis to the situation. Meaning has flowed through sense (sound), emotion (fear) and intellect (analysis). — emancipate
Really it is much more than this, the situation (initial experience) is complete morass of meaning. But in retrospective analysis meaning has been reduced by the intellect to a speck of what it was during experience. — emancipate
And moral language is no different from any other sort of language. It doesn't deserve to be put in a class by itself as some super-special language with its own set of interpretive rules. It, like any statement, means what it means -- and can be put to many uses, from admonishment, expression, description, and so forth. — Moliere
You do not distinguish between what is required for understanding and objective meaning, you call them the same thing unless I am missing something. — Judaka
When I asserted this you have replied "Yes, and? — Judaka
Where based on an established criterion, a particular judgement is necessarily reached., objective validity is achieved. Which says if premises this means conclusion. When the premises are subjective so is the conclusion. Morality is always going to have subjective premises and so is the same with language.
The dictionary I write is not for a "made up language" it's for English. There are already many dictionaries for English and they don't all say exactly the same things.
Talking about language just seems like a tangent from the perspective of validity, the problem with English is that the rules don't achieve objective validity and the existence of rules doesn't necessitate certain interpretations. I haven't argued that the differences in our interpretations might not be trivial or non-existent, perhaps we have different rules for calling something "objective".
That's part and parcel with language, we will have different understandings for words and the concepts they refer to. — Judaka
The dictionary I write is not for a "made up language" it's for English. There are already many dictionaries for English and they don't all say exactly the same things. — Judaka
You're certainly missing something. A key difference between what's required for there to be understanding and what's required for there to be meaning is that the former requires there to be a subject and the latter does not, and obviously you can see here that I'm not calling them the same thing. — S
No, that's clearly not what you asserted before. Go back and see for yourself. You didn't even use the word "understanding". You just seemed to put to me a rephrased version of my own point about a rule based independent meaning, which I obviously agreed with and questioned what your point was. — S
Sorry, but what are you talking about? You've lost me. If you think that you can refute my argument, then go ahead and try, but you can't just say some tosh about it being subjective without properly explaining how that's allegedly the case. Understanding requires a subject, whereas meaning as I've described it does not. In this sense, it is objective. Over to you. — S
You are trying to argue that rules which have been created for the sake of making a language functional have created objective meaning because they are independently coherent and established. — Judaka
I am classifying perception as a mental association -- that is, the sort of thing that has meaning. I am not saying the world makes associations. — Moliere
1. Where would you advise one to find the established rules for English?
The example of me writing my own dictionary is pointing to this problem. Dictionaries are different from each other, let alone something I might write. Language evolves over time and I think if your argument is that there IS established rules for English, you should be able to point me to some source of where to find them. My follow up question if needed will be why you choose that over something else. — Judaka
2. Why isn't the lack of objective validity in English a problem for your position?
Objective validity means the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. This is the bare minimum requires for an argument of meaning not requiring interpretation. If the premises don't necessarily lead to a conclusion then how do you know which conclusion is correct? Someone needs to make a choice.
English is filled with words that describe values, concepts, ideas, feelings and so much more without the required specificity to know exactly what is being talked about. "Justice" could just as easily be killing people as it is saving people, why isn't interpretation needed here? What do the established rules tell us about what is being talked about when people use the word "justice"?
Context matters in English too, if I say "I really need to go", you could understand what I mean differently based on the context. Do I mean to the toilet? Or do I have some kind of appointment? What did I mean when I said I really need to go? Why do I need to go?
The words "I need to go" may have communicated those things but I don't know how the rules of English allow for this.
I would say "I need to go" is a fairly trivial statement but let's find an even more trivial statement like "I am a man".
What does that mean? Why am I saying that? What am I referring to? The lack of objective validity is a problem as far as I can see, this is at least one problem for the idea language carries objective meaning. — Judaka
I'd just say it's something of an outdated model to call the world external, and the mind internal. — Moliere
Isn't processing external information a mental activity, on your view? — Moliere
I mean, even by your own notions of subjectivity, it's not like I can observe your perception. — Moliere
And so, given that meaning happens in the brain, and perception happens in the brain, and meaning does not require language, it would seem -- at first blush, though I am open to being corrected by you in understanding your position -- that dog perception has meaning. — Moliere
Emancipate is expanding my definition in a way which may bring greater clarity to how interpretation works for us all. — Judaka
My premise for question 1 was that you agreed with that your position was that language has rules sufficient to create objective meaning but now you are saying I can understand you without rules. If there aren't rules for English then I don't understand your position any more. — Judaka
Your counter-argument for question 2 is that you aren't arguing for complete objective meaning. You initially said that because I could understand you, you may have demonstrated either a paradox or a contradiction, now you say that there is no complete objective meaning just partial. — Judaka
If you can understand the meaning of my words when they lack objective meaning, what's outlandish about you understanding the meaning of my words (at least enough so to allow language to function) if all of them lacked objective meaning? — Judaka
I don't know what you mean when you use the word "objective" but I can't think of a definition that makes sense with what you're saying. I don't understand what your argument is and I don't understand what I need to prove/disprove to further my case against yours. — Judaka
What I know is that without objective validity, objective meaning can't exist.
If we categorised all of the types, colours, sizes, shapes, textures and so on which exist under the umbrella term of "apple". In English, what is an apple? It's all of those things and none of those things. It could be any of the viable characterisations in any arrangement. The premise of "an apple" doesn't lead to a conclusion of what precisely is being talked about. — Judaka
We could go around and take every word that I'm using and demonstrate further that the possibility for interpretation is rather extreme although potentially infrequently utilised by anyone. The end result would be a near non-existent set of rules, words which can have a variety of meanings and contexts, intentions and etc which can change the meaning of the words/phrase. — Judaka
I said objective validity is the bare minimum for an argument in favour of objective meaning but it's not the ONLY requirement. There are further hurdles to contend with but I don't see the point in bringing them up.
You act like I've presented no evidence worth contending with and I feel like you basically have nothing left to talk about in your favour which may signal it is better to agree to disagree than continue arguing. — Judaka
Would it be outdated to talk about internal and external to something like a refrigerator? Because that's more or less similar to the distinction. It's a locational distinction primarily. — Terrapin Station
Mentally processing it, you mean? Obviously that's a mental activity. — Terrapin Station
Sure, and the relevance of that is? — Terrapin Station
Meaning is subjective. It's something that occurs in individuals' heads. It's the inherently mental act of making associations. It can't be literally shared, but we can tell others what we're associating in many cases. You can't know how an individual is doing this without asking them. — Terrapin Station
Dogs and many other animals may have very similar mental phenomena to us, and there's no reason to believe that we're the only animals with language.
The closer other animals' brains are to our own the more reason we have to believe they experience similar mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station
but It's not like I am in here and the world I experience is out there. I am a part of the world. — Moliere
That is, when we each talk about Paris, we are not talking about the same thing.
And yet, in a very real sense, we do both talk about Paris. — Banno
If meaning is all inside one's head, how is it that you and I can talk together about Paris? — Banno
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.