( my bolding)and as long as I can make sense, per my meanings, concepts, etc., of what you said, especially in the context of other things you've said (and will say), that amounts to understanding you. — Terrapin Station
That's pretty much the view critiqued in Philosophical Investigations. — Banno
What's hidden here? — Banno
As it stands, meaning is explained in terms of meaning. — Banno
Let's go with it. Does that perception have a meaning, or not? That, after all, is what I'm trying to understand -- your boundaries for the usage of the term "meaning". — Moliere
'One ought not kill' and 'One ought follow the imperative 'do not kill'' — fdrake
"Killing is wrong" can be re-parsed as "don't kill". — Banno
If "Killing is wrong" is true, then one ought follow the imperative "Don't kill". — Banno
So it's important to understand that meaning is an activity that we perform. It's not something that external things have or not.
Can we perform that activity (the meaning activity) in response to our perceptions, sure. But it's not identical to the perceptions. It's something additional to them. — Terrapin Station
So if I associate tea with crumpets then I have a meaning, let's just say that I put them in any relation together (be it in space, as a meal, or within time) then that is the meaning-activity.
Where does language enter in this picture? — Moliere
Associating is putting . . . well, what? into a relation? Or not a relation? — Moliere
And is language somehow then outside of meaning? — Moliere
Almost every sentence of PI has some problem. I was detailing that in my comments on the PI thread. — Terrapin Station
What's hidden? I have no idea what you're asking. — Terrapin Station
and as long as I can make sense, per my meanings, concepts, etc., — Terrapin Station
What's hidden? I have no idea what you're asking. So here's an example where the sounds (or marks) you're making can't be given coherent meanings from my perspective. — Terrapin Station
Well, we disagree profoundly here. — Banno
It's just that your explanation needs some more - you explain "sense"in terms of meaning. — Banno
As it stands there is nothing that your two participants hav in common. — Banno
So it's important to understand that meaning is an activity that we perform. It's not something that external things have or not. — Terrapin Station
So let's hash it out in the PI thread. — Terrapin Station
'One ought not kill': Killing is an element in the group of things we ought not do.
'One ought follow the imperative 'do not kill'': 'Do not kill' is an element of the group of things we ought do, and is an imperative. — Banno
TO be candid, I would drop "meaning" from most philosophical conversation. It's far more productive to talk about what we do with words, how they interact with the world, and such, than to get bogged down in esoteric waffle about concepts and such. — Banno
Relevant distinctions are that imperatives are performative relational triads, words for activities (in the context we're using them anyway) are singular and constantive. — fdrake
TO be candid, I would drop "meaning" from most philosophical conversation. It's far more productive to talk about what we do with words, how they interact with the world, and such, than to get bogged down in esoteric waffle about concepts and such — Banno
Triad? just to make sure we are on the same page - speaker, hearer and state of affairs? Words for activities have their use, perhaps, hen placed in such triads. — Banno
As it stands there is nothing that your two participants have in common.
— Banno
If that were so, then what of it? — Terrapin Station
To be sure, speech acts are acts, and hence subject to moral interpretation. I think we agree on this. — Banno
I suspect that the difference between what I think your words mean and what you think those words mean is trivial or non-existent. That's what allows language to function. This has not demonstrated objective meaning any more than an objective truth would be demonstrated to be true if it were shown that all souls on Earth believed it was — Judaka
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.