I was thinking in terms of how language rules could be established, and for that communication seems necessary. — Echarmion

I'm thinking that there are unspoken rules at work, especially early on during the development of the language. I'm also thinking that some language rules are constructs of language; written instructions.

Rules of grammar. Syntax. Understanding. Truth. Meaning. Logical rules. The rules of correct inference. All of these things are conceptions.

Do any of them point to a referent that exists in it's entirety prior to being named?

I'm not a realist on physical law, but we weren't talking about physical laws anyway. We were talking about rules that people construct... — Terrapin Station

Elaborate upon the difference between the two in as precise terms as your worldview allows. Please.

There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. — S

Only one...

Let's stick to arguments based upon a bit more than logical possibility alone...

The last speaker of a native tongue carries the meaning of use along with them at the moment of death.

I'm asking you a direct question. Simple.

Do you have an answer? — creativesoul

My original answer was good enough.

The last speaker of a native tongue carries the meaning of use along with them at the moment of death. — creativesoul

That would be a conclusion, not an argument.

You didn't do as I asked, which was to give a proper answer, where that means giving a fully justified answer instead of just asserting a necessary dependence. You deliberately left that part out of what you quoted.

The empirical evidence there is of us doing something. There's zero evidence of meaning obtaining outside of that.

We obviously do not think of the marks as being meaningless. The question is whether they have meaning outside of that. There's no evidence that they do. — Terrapin Station

Come on, don't be obtuse; the empirical evidence is that we can and do decipher ancient texts. What do you think would happen of we tried to decipher naturally occurring marks in stones? Do you want to argue that there is no difference between human-produced and naturally produced marks on rocks, and that we could never decipher an ancient text to discover (at least something of if not the whole of) the meaning that was originally inscribed there?

You guys obviously need to scratch up on your Wittgenstein — S

I don't agree with Wittgenstein, though. (And in my opinion the "Wittgenstein cult" is one of the worst things to happen to philosophy in the last 100 years.) I was detailing that in the PI thread. I'm behind in that thread and need to catchy back up, but I started detailing disagreements with him.

Keep reading. One distinction was the sentence that followed in the post you quoted: "If there are physical laws, it's literally impossible to 'disobey them' (at least in the possible world wherein the physical law obtains). That's not at all the case for rules as we're talking about them."

I don't agree with Wittgenstein, though. (And in my opinion the "Wittgenstein cult" is one of the worst things to happen to philosophy in the last 100 years.) I was detailing that in the PI thread. I'm behind in that thread and need to catchy back up, but I started detailing disagreements with him. — Terrapin Station

Blasphemer.

Don’t you just hate it when it’s presupposed about you, that you don’t know something after you’ve already rejected it?

The source of the time-independent “rocks are rocks” tautology”
“.....It is clear that in the description of the most general form of proposition only what is essential to it may be described -- otherwise it would not be the most general form. That there is a general form is proved by the fact that there cannot be a proposition whose form could not have been foreseen (i.e. constructed). The general form of proposition is: Such and such is the case.

....and, lest we forget the case of the disappearing humans:
“....The totality of true propositions is the total natural science (or the totality of the natural sciences).
Propositions can represent the whole reality, but they cannot represent what they must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it -- the logical form.
To be able to represent the logical form, we should have to be able to put ourselves with the propositions outside logic, that is outside the world....”

I know I know.....it’s been said (1787) one cannot and should not nit-pick a manuscript for his own particular purposes without jeopardizing the understanding of the totality of it. Been there, done that, got the extra-thick reading glasses to show for it. (Sigh)

Rhetorically speaking.

I think one approach that could be helpful - and this is why I was bristly about the origin question - is to move away from overly-tidy constructions and focus on examples in the wild. One convenient way to do that would be to take lnguage use as it occurs on the forum. You could focus on the shared languge - everyday english - people bring, the terminology borrowed from other philosophers, or the shared shorthand thats developed over time on here. I think in every case you'll see a communal process that exceeds any one speaker - so "subjective" isn't quite it, though of course the lived experience and activity of individual speakers is part of that.

Many people have spoken of philosophy as an ongoing conversation, with no royal road. You become acquainted with various pieces by listening-in and only slowly become conversant yourself. Whatever language is, this aspect of it seems key.

I'm asking you a direct question...

Do you have an answer?
— creativesoul

My original answer was good enough. — S

Guess not.

I find that none of those notions can take proper account of meaning.
— creativesoul

Real helpful. It's ontology or nothing. If you refuse to do ontology, then you're just not cooperating. You must think on that level, and begin to categorise in that way. — S

Why would I continue to use terminological frameworks that are inherently incapable of taking proper account of meaning as a means for taking proper account of a kind of meaning?

:yikes:

You didn't do as I asked, which was to give a proper answer, where that means giving a fully justified answer instead of just asserting a necessary dependence. — S

Fully justified?

:worry:

You want a thesis on existential dependency and what can be gleaned - on an ontological level - by putting it to use?

Is the justification or truth of my assertions existentially dependent upon you?

I think not.

At the end of the universe sits a chair. Upon the chair sits a copy of The Iliad...

Is either meaningful?

There is an ancient text found. No one speaks the language. Some jerkoff or another says that they've deciphered the text. How can anyone know if it is translated correctly?

There is an ancient text found. No one speaks the language. Some jerkoff or another says that they've deciphered the text. How can anyone know if it is translated correctly? — creativesoul

Why don't you create a discussion of your own and ask that question? Can you please stop trying to be the chairperson in other people's discussions all the time?

The question directly addresses the situation you put forth. Why don't you try to deal with issues that your position has?

It's a take on Witt's beetle, by the way.

You're such an obtuse brat sometimes.

The question directly addresses the situation you put forth. Why don't you try to deal with issues that your position has? — creativesoul

It's a scenario which you yourself thought up, and it asks a different question which I'm not concerned with. You should be putting a conscious effort into pursuing my line of inquiry, not coming of with what you think are "better" lines of enquiry. You are very annoying when you do this. You're not engaging with anyone in particular, you're trying to redirect the audience to your line of inquiry. In short, you're trying to take over control of chairing the discussion. And you do it all the time. That's really rude and inappropriate. And I find it much more of a slight than swearing or name calling or giving me a bit of attitude or whatnot: that's superficial stuff which I can overlook. That's water off a duck's back. But this? This is an affront.

I'm talking about things that need to be talked about in order to acquire knowledge of the origens of linguistic meaning; knowledge of what linguistic meaning consists in/of...

Are you claiming that that is not relevant here?

:worry:

You talk about using outdated positions like logical positivism, while simultaneously using archaic linguistic frameworks. Those frameworks are the problem. They cannot properly account for meaning. The project is to take proper account of a kind of meaning.

The methodology you're insisting that everyone follow is utterly inadequate for the task.

It's like insisting that everyone follow Zeno's language use, and refusing to allow anyone to deviate from it, refusing to allow anyone to use calculus. That is refusing to acknowledge that Zeno's linguistic framework is utterly inadequate for taking account of how the rabbit can catch up to and then pass the turtle.

You're doing much the same thing here.

The problem is the historical language use of 'ontology'...

Look, I'm not saying that you had bad intent, but I really think that you have a tendency to go about involving yourself in a discussion in the wrong way.

Can you quote something that has been said, try to remain on point, and if you seem to be going down a different avenue of thought, then explain the relevance to what has been said? I don't want the subject changed without very good reason, and I'll be the judge of that. Can you please respect my wishes?

Look, I'm not saying that you had bad intent, but I really think that you have a tendency to go about involving yourself in a discussion in the wrong way. — S

Pointing out that the methodology(the terminological framework) you're insisting on, is inherently inadequate for the task is the wrong way to involve myself in the discussion?

How else to I tell you that the problems are the inherently inadequate conceptions, language use, and/or the terminological frameworks you're adopting and working from?

Flies and bottles...

Pointing out that the methodology(the terminological framework) you're insisting on, is inherently inadequate for the task is the wrong way to involve myself in the discussion?

How else to I tell you that the problems are the inherently inadequate conceptions, language use, and/or the terminological frameworks you're adopting and working from?

Flies and bottles... — creativesoul

Step 1 is to quote something I said. The quote function is your friend.

Step one is for you to go back and revisit the post where I did quote you and offered relevant answers...

page 6 maybe?

Step one is for you to go back and revisit the post where I did quote you and offered relevant answers...

page 6 maybe? — creativesoul

I lost patience after your problematic first reply, which I did briefly address. You were just getting the wrong end of the stick, and it would sap my will and my energy to explain why that it is, and where you're going wrong, and I wouldn't find that rewarding. With others, they either got it, or they didn't get it quite so wrong, and it was something I could work with.

There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. The creature dies a minute later. Why would the linguistic meaning he set die with him? Why wouldn't this mean that in the language?. — S

One person is insufficient for language. The entire scenario is ill conceived.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users. The meaning does not consist of language users. The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. The meaning lives or dies along with the users. If someone or other later finds a text, it is possible for them to decipher some of the meaning. That would require that an interpreter draw the same correlations between the marks and whatever else those marks were correlated with by the original actual users of that language...

How would anyone know if they had any of it right if there is no user to verify?

One person is insufficient for language. The entire scenario is ill conceived.

Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users. The meaning does not consist of language users. The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. The meaning lives or dies along with the users. If someone or other later finds a text, it is possible for them to decipher some of the meaning. That would require that an interpreter draw the same correlations between the marks and whatever else those marks were correlated with by the original actual users of that language... — creativesoul

That's far too many assertions there that you're bombarding me with all at once. You're getting ahead of yourself now. Each one would require careful analysis. Each one would require an argument from you. I don't need to be presented with claims which are already what the debate hinges on, like this:

"Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users".

And this:

"The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things".

And this, which is redundant, as it is basically just another way of putting the first claim:

"The meaning lives or dies along with the users".

Again, these should be your conclusions, not your premises!

And as for this:

"One person is insufficient for language".

Even if true, that's not a big deal, as that wasn't the point of the thought experiment. Just change the number to whatever you think the minimum requirement is.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes. — creativesoul

It seems a little unclear. I would change it to: all linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. That way it makes it clear that only linguistic meaning is being talked about, and it makes it clear that only a past act is required for there to be linguistic meaning. This past act required subjects, but that's all that they're required for, as far as I can reasonably assess. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed.

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Let's start there.

Do you disagree?

If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes.
— creativesoul

It seems a little unclear. I would change it to: all linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. That way it makes it clear that only linguistic meaning is being talked about, and it makes it clear that only a past act is required for there to be linguistic meaning. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed. — S

All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.
Linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning.
Linguistic meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.

"Drawn" is past tense, so the pedantry is unnecessary. It's not about you. It's about linguistic meaning being a kind of meaning. If all meaning consists of a set of necessary elemental constituents, and linguistic meaning is a kind of meaning, then linguistic meaning consists of those necessary elemental constituents.

Those are what linguistic meaning consists of, plus whatever else it takes to be linguistic(in addition to the basic necessary elemental constituents) as compared/contrasted to other kinds of meaning.