Is meaning subjective or objective?

Is meaning green or red?

Same argument.

I think that the concept of 'meaning' is over-used, particularly at the macro scale. We can ask what a word means, and in some cases there is a simple answer to that, provided by the dictionary. But that often will still not enable us to understand the speech act in which the word is contained.

It becomes more dubious when we ask what entire speech acts, or even larger things like novels or symphonies, 'mean'.

I have been reflecting recently on the Intentionalist vs Anti-Intentionalist perspectives in aesthetics, and find myself tending towards the view that it is an argument over nothing - that novels and symphonies do not have any meaning.

With speech acts, I find Wittgenstein's perspective intuitive and satisfying: the relevant question is not what did somebody 'mean' by a speech act but rather, why did they do it? - what were they seeking to accomplish?

'What do you mean?' is often an aggressive debating tactic, used to imply that one's interlocutor is spouting nonsense. In rare cases it is said in a friendly way because the speaker did not understand the speech act they have just heard, and are hoping the speaker will rephrase it in a way that they can then understand. Here I use 'understand' in the Wittgensteinian sense of 'realising what the speaker was trying to achieve'.

Moral statements are more easily understood in a Wittgensteinian framework. If someone says 'pre-marital sex is immoral', then likely their purpose is to influence, however slightly, the amount of pre-marital sex in the world in a downward direction. But in some cases it may be that they wish somebody to like them, who they know to have that wish about pre-marital sex. Or it might be said to somebody in order to dissuade them from trying to seduce them.

When a politician says that XYZ group of people is untrustworthy, violent, dangerous, lazy or whatever other moral insult, it is likely because they want people to support their drive for a war or other aggressive attack on that group.

No need. Others will help you. — Banno

No luck. A lot of people here seem to have the impression that "reading groups" should be somewhere between an apologetics strategy meeting and a cheerleading squad for the author.

that convinces me that what you have said is insufficient to explain how we understand each other. — Banno

But I had just explained what understanding amounts to. What part of that did you disagree with, or what did you think it didn't cover?

Ah, someone else who confuses understanding and meaning. My distinction can help you with that problem. What you're describing in your first sentence is understanding, not meaning. Meaning is something that external things can have, like a written sentence. — S

Oops. Nope.

Before I get into the details of your reply, let's go right back to the beginning and analyse our discussion.

Meaning is a result of interpretation... — Judaka

This is where the problem began. It began with you making a claim about meaning, when really it would make more sense as a claim about understanding. That there is meaning is not a result of interpretation, it is a result of setting a language rule. Interpretation relates to understanding. We understand as a result of interpretation.

As a result of this problem, I began to discuss both meaning and interpretation, and the distinctions between them.

There is no "the" meaning. — Judaka

This is what I demonstrated to be paradoxical or false.

Are you arguing that the meaning of words is not interpreted? — Judaka

This question didn't make sense to me as worded, because it's incomplete. I tried to get you to clarify by asking for what purpose:

Not interpreted for what? We interpret meaning in order to gain an understanding. I'm not disputing that. — S

Then you said something about what it is that allows language to function, which to me, is missing the point. When you entered this discussion, you began by talking about what it takes for there to be meaning, then you switched to what it is that allows language to function, and then you made a further point against an argument which I never made relating to objective meaning, saying that it doesn't demonstrate objective meaning:

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

So, in response, I gave you my argument for objective meaning:

There is objective meaning when it comes to language, because linguistic meaning is rule based, and rules do not require rule followers. We've already set the rules, and they would persist without us. If we went extinct tomorrow, these linguistic rules would continue to apply. — S

Then I reiterated the problem I picked up on from the beginning.

You're making the common idealist confusion of muddling up what it takes for something to be understood, and what it takes for something to have meaning. Or, more broadly, epistemology and metaphysics. — S

I could go back over the whole discussion in this manner, but I really don't want to. I've tried to get you to clarify throughout, but without much luck. The way I see it, it's a really simple issue. You're either talking about something I consider trivially true, namely that we need to interpret meaning in order to understand it, or you're talking about something I consider fundamentally flawed, which is what I think of as the idealist position on linguistic meaning, namely something along the lines that for language to have meaning, there must be a subject there interpreting it.

I really don't know why it has been so difficult throughout our discussion for you to simply let me know, clearly, where you stand on this. Hopefully your last reply will enable us to finally make some progress on this. I'll get back to you on that one.

it is a result of setting a language rule. — S

Even if that were the case how would that not involve interpretation?

Even if that were the case how would that not involve interpretation? — Terrapin Station

Let's say that it does involve interpretation. Does it follow that linguistic meaning is not objective (which is where the discussion lead)? No, it does not. Not as I defined objective. Only irrelevant conclusions follow, such as that the meaning couldn't be understood.

And it still wouldn't be quite right to say that meaning is the result of interpretation. It would be more right to say that it's the result of setting a language rule (and setting a language rule involves interpretation).

This is a quote which really shows that I recognised the difference between the two from the start. I would advise you that your assumptions about me are incorrect. You don't see it perhaps but I am saying what allows language to function is some level of understanding and not objective meaning. This is achieved through small enough differences in our interpretations to allow communication. — Judaka

Please explain what you mean by the function of language, and please explain why you started going on about what it takes for language to function in response to what I said. If you're just going to reveal a premise which necessarily implies something requiring a subject, like communication or understanding, then I have zero interest in that, as I consider it trivially true, and missing the point. My point was about something else, namely what it takes for there to be linguistic meaning, and why linguistic meaning is objective.

This point relates back to your very first sentence of your very first reply in this discussion, namely that meaning is a result of interpretation. I looked at that in terms of what it would take for there to be meaning, and my related point was that, even if interpretation was involved at an earlier stage, it is not required at a later stage for meaning to persist. Once again, it is in this sense that meaning is objective, and not subjective, by which I mean, once again, that it is not metaphysically dependent, at this stage, on there being subjects or subject-dependent activities like interpretation. That's only relevant epistemologically, and once again, I'm not making a point about epistemology.

It is from the start that it was, in fact, you who has argued for objective meaning by demonstrating understanding is possible. I don't consider this "idealism" but it is something you've admitted to doing. — Judaka

?

It is also not the case that we are debating to see whether or not you can be satisfied that you are wrong and I am right. I said earlier that you think my arguments have no merit and I think I've pretty much proven the idea of objective meaning to be false at this point. — Judaka

Wow, I'm genuinely flabbergasted that you think you have shown the idea of objective meaning to be false. Please quote your refutation of my argument. You don't even seem to have addressed it. As far as I can tell, you addressed a straw man, and you have pretty much ignored my argument.

I don't really agree that the onus is on me to disprove objective meaning if you thought it existed then you must prove it. I only wanted to prove that objective meaning doesn't exist because I think I can. — Judaka

I presented my argument long ago, back on page one. Where is yours? And if my argument refutes it, then where is your attempted rebuttal?

I think for me to continue talking to you, I'd have to go back and revise all of your arguments for objective meaning and try to dismantle them in front of you. — Judaka

That's what you should have been attempting to do from the beginning! But it's as though you got lost in your own confusion.

Whether I could or not, who knows? It just doesn't strike me as a very interesting concept and I get worried when debating people who seem to have a low opinion on me. You are the "realist" and I am the "idealist", I don't want to argue with someone who sees the debate being framed in that way. — Judaka

Jesus Christ. It's nothing personal. Although admittedly I have found arguments utilising idealist logic to be abysmal, so if I think that you're relying on the same sort of logic, then yes, that is likely going to affect how I think of you to some extent. There's no need to get all melodramatic about it. If I'm wrong, you can set me straight. Well, you can try.

I've been trying to make sense of what you've been saying, and with little cooperation from you on that front, it's possible that I've assessed your position incorrectly. That's why I've been repeatedly trying to get you to clarify your position. But if you think that you've "pretty much proven the idea of objective meaning to be false" then you must surely be an idealist, or at least an anti-realist, with respect to linguistic meaning. Call your position whatever you like, I'm just trying to make the conversation easier by giving our distinct positions names.

Is meaning subjective or objective? — Banno

Objective (as I've defined it).

Is meaning green or red?

Same argument. — Banno

Um, no. Just no.

Alright I think I'm beginning to get a picture of what you're talking about, and I'm ready for more chocolate cake. Plus I feel like I'm getting close to the original topic now.

So my understanding of a relation is derived namely from ordered pairs, where you have two sets and some kind of operation from one set to the other that gives you an element in the other set.

So my thought here is that we have two sets -- and because this is language that we probably don't want to use the relation of a strict ordered pair, but it gets the idea across of what we might mean by a relation -- a sort of table where things are grouped together. The elements of one set are the phonic substance, as Saussure called it -- or the digital shapes that we are using now. I imagine that we must be going from the phonic substance to something in the refridgerator. Now, meaning is just this association, so my question is -- what are the elements of the set within the refridgerator to which the phonic substance, scribbles, or digital shapes are relating to?

Oopsy-whoopsy! Never mind then, eh?

Let's say that it does involve interpretation. Does it follow that linguistic meaning is not objective (which is where the discussion lead)? No, it does not. Not as I defined objective. Only irrelevant conclusions follow, such as that the meaning couldn't be understood. — S

How are you defining objective so that interpretation (and meaning) could be objective?

So my thought here is that we have two sets -- and because this is language that we probably don't want to use the relation of a strict ordered pair, but it gets the idea across of what we might mean by a relation -- a sort of table where things are grouped together. The elements of one set are the phonic substance, as Saussure called it -- or the digital shapes that we are using now. I imagine that we must be going from the phonic substance to something in the refridgerator. Now, meaning is just this association, so my question is -- what are the elements of the set within the refridgerator to which the phonic substance, scribbles, or digital shapes are relating to? — Moliere

First, I'm not a realist on mathematics, and especially not on sets.

Relations are simply any way that two things are related to each other. "To the left of (from perspective x)" is a relation. "Cause" a la "x caused y" is a relation. "Is the parent of" is a relation. "Is located on the same planet as" is a relation. Etc.

The relation in question with respect to meaning is that some individual is performing the act of making an association between x and y, where the association isn't just arbitrary for them, but is at least periodically, in particular contexts, brought to mind for them when they think about x and/or y.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/254350

Here's something else to consider, especially if you are thinking along the lines of meaning being somehow internal - @Terrapin Station?

If meaning is something in one's mind, and your mind is distinct from my mind, then the meaning in my mind is not the very same as the meaning in your mind.

For example, "Paris" will have one meaning for you, and a different meaning for me.

SO when we talk about "Paris", we each mean the term in a different way.

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.

Sense and reference, intension and extension, that sort of thing.

yep.

Not sure why you're repeating that. I addressed all of that.

It seems to me, then, that you think moral statements are primarily tools for influencing the actions of others. Yes?

Okay, let's try this again since you gave such a reasonable response.

Let me tell you just a tiny bit about myself; I am a hardcore pragmatist, who's generally never interested in epistemology or metaphysics unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm also a moral relativist and I reject the idea of objective meaning as a concept. This is an important point to me in many different areas, religion, politics, morality, language and so on.

If I didn't think the objective meaning would be problematic as a concept, I probably wouldn't bother talking about it or thinking about it at all. This isn't a discussion about whether we want objective meaning or not - but whether it exists but I think it's important to understand my motivations here. I consider it to be a dreadful thing, when the concept of objective meaning is invoked, I am less concerned by the falseness of the claim but with how this idea threatens many things I hold to be of great value. That's another thread though.

Understanding vs Meaning

Let me clarify my position, understanding requires interpretation or "this means that". Understanding is not the same as meaning but meaning also requires interpretation. To understand language, we need to have some idea of the meaning of words and phrases, obviously, so I'd argue understanding requires meaning and meaning requires interpretation.

My understanding is that your position is that language has a coherent ruleset, the meaning of words is defined in the language and there are correct ways to use the language and incorrect ways. The language no longer requires interpretation, you simply need to follow the rules.

Now we're talking about language without anyone to speak it, so there's no "you" and the rules will persist regardless of whether or not anyone is there to interpret or use them.

The first really important thing we needed to clarify is what are the actual rules for English you're referring to. I don't think you ever appreciated how big of a hurdle this is. I am going to limit myself to talking about English in a universe where no humans exist so I hope you'll do the same since that's what we're talking about.

Very odd question. I would advise them to learn the language in the usual ways, and use the usual resources, such as a dictionary or a language learning app. We've all learnt a language as children through to adulthood, and that entails learning language rules. A great deal of it is automatic for us, of course. We learnt the rules long ago. You understand what I'm saying without any need to learn the rules. — S

Let me rephrase the question then, in a universe where there is nobody. Where are the rules for English? You're saying English has these rules that will exist regardless of people but I don't know what rules you're talking about. I don't know what you think I'm trying to prove by asking this from you so let me clarify.

My position is that English does have some basic rules, these rules are insufficient to argue for objective meaning, like not even close. They don't even attempt to do that, they are just some basic rules of which half of them a lot of people just ignore anyway. I use Grammarly to help me with my punctuation and half the time I ignore its advice because I disagree with it.

If you want to argue English has rules to an extent that creates objective meaning then you need to clarify what they are. If you take this exercise seriously, I hope this in itself will disprove the idea that English has rules sufficient for objective meaning. If not then, we can continue to debate once we have some rules and talking about what they can and can't do.

It will not be an easy task to show any ruleset you provide is some kind of official ruleset for English. Dictionaries are not the same, common use of English bypasses some of its rules and new words are created, definitions change and the language is not being used the same way by everyone. However, I will not make this an issue, just bring up some rules and we can examine them.

If you can't do this, then at least rephrase your argument. It's preposterous to argue that the rules of English do this or that without even explaining what the rules for English are and just telling me "You know them" when this whole exercise assumes I don't even exist.

It seems to me, then, that you think moral statements are primarily tools for influencing the actions of others. Yes? — Moliere

Yes I think so. There are occasional exceptions. For instance I may be wrestling with a moral decision about my own potential future actions, and seeking advice from others. I may put forward a moral statement and ask others what they think about it, as a means of exploring what decision I really feel I ought to take. In that case my purpose in making the statement is to try to resolve my own bout of indecision.

How are you defining objective so that interpretation (and meaning) could be objective? — Terrapin Station

No, interpretation isn't objective. By objective I mean independent of any subject or subjective activity. Interpretation is a subjective activity. Obviously it requires a subject. Linguistic meaning, however, once it has been set, does not require a subject or any subjective activity at all times for it to persist. In this sense, it is objective. If all of us were to go extinct right now, it would still be the case that words like "car", "bike", "cat", and so on, mean what they mean in English. The language rules have been set. Why would they suddenly cease to apply, just because no one is there to understand them?

I'm a metaphysical realist. There's a similar argument for why truth, reality, as well as things like cars, bikes, and apples, are objective.

No, interpretation isn't objective. By objective I mean independent of any subject or subjective activity. Interpretation is a subjective activity. Obviously it requires a subject. Linguistic meaning, however, once it has been set, does not require a subject or any subjective activity at all times for it to persist. In this sense, it is objective. If all of us were to go extinct right now, it would still be the case that words like "car", "bike", "cat", and so on, mean what they mean in English. The language rules have been set. Why would they suddenly cease to apply, just because no one is there to understand them? — S

So the meaning becomes what in your view, a set of sounds, or text marks, or behaviors, or what?

Understanding vs Meaning

Let me clarify my position, understanding requires interpretation or "this means that". — Judaka

Interpretation is a brain process. It is not the same as "this means that", which is a language rule. Understanding definitely requires interpretation and the kind of mental associations which that entails. But this is a tangent.

Understanding is not the same as meaning but meaning also requires interpretation. To understand language, we need to have some idea of the meaning of words and phrases, obviously, so I'd argue understanding requires meaning and meaning requires interpretation. — Judaka

You have twice above asserted that meaning requires interpretation, but, thus far, as far as I can tell, you have yet to provide a logically valid demonstration of that. Perhaps you will do so further down. We'll see.

My understanding is that your position is that language has a coherent ruleset, the meaning of words is defined in the language and there are correct ways to use the language and incorrect ways. The language no longer requires interpretation, you simply need to follow the rules. — Judaka

No longer requires interpretation FOR WHAT?!?!?

This is that same problem you have with incomplete sentences. How can I agree or disagree if your sentence is incomplete, and your meaning isn't clear?

If you're talking about interpretation being required for understanding, then please try to remember that this is completely beside the point. From very early on, back on page one, I clearly stated that I'm not disputing that.

And if you're talking about interpretation being required for there to be linguistic meaning, then I am still waiting for you to present a valid argument.

Now we're talking about language without anyone to speak it, so there's no "you" and the rules will persist regardless of whether or not anyone is there to interpret or use them. — Judaka

Yes, if we all went extinct right now, that's the hypothetical scenario which demonstrates objective meaning. What of it?

The first really important thing we needed to clarify is what are the actual rules for English you're referring to. I don't think you ever appreciated how big of a hurdle this is. I am going to limit myself to talking about English in a universe where no humans exist so I hope you'll do the same since that's what we're talking about. — Judaka

I've given examples. There are innumerable examples, and it is very easy to come up with them. You could do so yourself. For you or I to deny the rules of the English language would be a very obvious performative contradiction.

Let me rephrase the question then, in a universe where there is nobody. Where are the rules for English? You're saying English has these rules that will exist regardless of people but I don't know what rules you're talking about. I don't know what you think I'm trying to prove by asking this from you so let me clarify. — Judaka

To ask where the rules are doesn't make sense to me, so I can't answer it. Unless you're just asking for a physical display, like a poster or a page in a book. Otherwise it seems like asking what time the colour red is.

I already gave you specific examples, like the general language rule for what the word "car" means in English, and I already showed you the general form that they take: this means that.

My position is that English does have some basic rules, these rules are insufficient to argue for objective meaning, like not even close. They don't even attempt to do that, they are just some basic rules of which half of them a lot of people just ignore anyway. I use Grammarly to help me with my punctuation and half the time I ignore its advice because I disagree with it. — Judaka

Still no valid counter argument. Still no valid refutation. Merely asserting that it's insufficient won't do.

If you want to argue English has rules to an extent that creates objective meaning then you need to clarify what they are. If you take this exercise seriously, I hope this in itself will disprove the idea that English has rules sufficient for objective meaning. If not then, we can continue to debate once we have some rules and talking about what they can and can't do. — Judaka

I've already given examples, and you are more than capable of providing examples yourself, so over to you. Stop trying to shift the burden all the time.

It will not be an easy task to show any ruleset you provide is some kind of official ruleset for English. Dictionaries are not the same, common use of English bypasses some of its rules and new words are created, definitions change and the language is not being used the same way by everyone. However, I will not make this an issue, just bring up some rules and we can examine them. — Judaka

I already have. I told you that it doesn't even have to be English, you can make up your own language if you want to. It will necessarily involve language rules, and that's all I need. The burden is on you to attempt to refute my argument, and if you keep failing to even attempt it, then eventually I will give up trying and take that as a win by default. You are trying my patience, and I am warning you that if you continue down this path for much longer, then I will give up through exasperation and bring our discussion to an end.

If you can't do this, then at least rephrase your argument. It's preposterous to argue that the rules of English do this or that without even explaining what the rules for English are and just telling me "You know them" when this whole exercise assumes I don't even exist. — Judaka

It's not my fault if you're not paying sufficient attention and feigning ignorance. And it would be very silly to even expect us to be talking to each other if we're to actually act as though neither of us exist throughout this whole exchange. You do evidently already know enough of the rules of the English language, as this discussion we're having undoubtedly demonstrates, so you don't need me to tell you them for the purpose of progressing this discussion. That's just an excuse. Are you buying for time or what? You have much to explain. I recommend you at least make a start.

This ought to be quid pro quo. That's the deal if you want to continue this. Over to you. Don't disappoint me.

So basically here's what I got from you.
1. English (or any language) has objective meaning
2. However, not all of the language, just some of it
3. There are rules for the language that create this objective meaning
4. But we don't know exactly what they are, they are just floating around somewhere and you shouldn't have to explain what they are, it's a trivial point really

I've already addressed this. Once again, some degree of ambiguity is not sufficient to refute my argument. In these cases, the speaker presumably knows what he meant to a higher degree of accuracy. The speaker would be the rule setter. So the rule would be that this particular word in the speakers statement has this particular meaning. Once the rule is set, the speaker is no longer required. Why would it be otherwise? This is what you must account for if you intend to argue against me. I'm still waiting for a proper response to this from you. Are you going to attempt to justify your idealist premise? — S

5. Speakers create some rules when needed (which seems to be often), they become part of the English ruleset and fix the problem of lack of rules.
6. Demonstrating that definitions are insufficient for specificity is not a problem.
7. All of this is purely hypothetical and English clearly is interpreted when being used, however, I'm being idealistic by thinking English lacks objective meaning (something which would invalidate interpretation) when it's not being used.

I talked a lot about logical validity but apparently, you thought I was saying your argument lacked logical validity rather than me saying objective meaning requires logical validity so idk, we'll just leave that out.

I'm going to be honest with you, I've already presented a lot of counter-arguments and I've gone back and read some of your responses. You either don't see them as arguments, you misunderstood what I was saying or you waved them off as irrelevant by adding new information to your position not previously disclosed. I just have no idea how to argue against your position in a way that will make you happy. You seem to think we're having this understanding and I'm just being difficult, I assure you, there's very little understanding going on here, for both sides.

I actually think your argument could be blown over by the wind. It's vague, it's not clear how to disprove it and it's fairly dishonest. You also aren't really understanding anything I say. I mean you've quoted me here saying "English lacks rules sufficient for objective meaning" and called it not an argument. This is basically my experience talking to you.

If I really am bringing up arguments that don't refute your "argument" it's because I legitimately have no idea how to disprove your argument. I have no idea what logic you're leaning on, no idea what evidence you have and I really don't understand what you are talking about with "rules". Your argument seems to me just "it's obvious my stance is right, disprove me".

First, I'm not a realist on mathematics, and especially not on sets.

Relations are simply any way that two things are related to each other. "To the left of (from perspective x)" is a relation. "Cause" a la "x caused y" is a relation. "Is the parent of" is a relation. "Is located on the same planet as" is a relation. Etc.

The relation in question with respect to meaning is that some individual is performing the act of making an association between x and y, where the association isn't just arbitrary for them, but is at least periodically, in particular contexts, brought to mind for them when they think about x and/or y. — Terrapin Station

That's fine. Then we have xRy, where y is the phonic substance or scribbles on a paper or digital shapes. x is whatever is in the fridge.

Can you specify what x or R are?

Well, both x and y can be anything, really. You can make the associations between scribbles on paper and other scribbles you'd make on paper, or a sign (as in a literal sign) and and action, or whatever.

As for R, that's the associative act, which you can't "specify" in words or anything, because it's not words. It's the activity of making an association, which is inherently mental. We can't make that into something else.

So I am keeping scribbles within my fridge?

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is how we bootstrap from no understanding of language to an understanding of a language. Associating seems to me the sort of thing that a lot of cognitive systems can accomplish, and we could call that meaningful mental activity but I wouldn't call it meaning in the sense of the English language.

And so while we would call these associations meaning, what then would we call the meaning when we're talking about the English language? How does that relate to this associating?

So the meaning becomes what in your view, a set of sounds, or text marks, or behaviors, or what? — Terrapin Station

It doesn't become anything other than what it already is: a language rule, as in this means that. You can categorise that however you like, but in the scenario where we go extinct in, say, an hours time, it would still be the case that this means that. Why wouldn't it be? No one is presenting any counter arguments against me.

The associative act. That's different than the scribbles.