Seems that I'm usually the one bearing the greatest burden. That comes with the territory of bucking conventional 'wisdom'...

I welcome it, and it appeals to me, being the rebel I am.

I've never been accused of being a good follower, except for when it comes to following the rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour.

:wink:

Perhaps the underlying debate question would be akin to an earlier debate between Landru and I...

Is meaning prior to language?

If a non-linguistic creature can form and/or hold thought and belief, then either it is not meaningful to the creature or meaning is prior to language.

Creative's opponent in debate must pretend that this is all some kind of sham, and that we in fact don't know shit? — Sapientia

:smile: It'd be hard to argue persuasively if it's only pretend.

:smile: It'd be hard to argue persuasively if it's only pretend. — Caldwell

Maybe, but from my perspective, it'd be much harder to actually believe it.

Is meaning prior to language? — creativesoul

Yes. Is that really worth debating?

You may be surprised how many folk believe that meaning requires language. Some hold that meaning does not require thought and/or belief(mind) either. So... perhaps so, perhaps not. You - of course - do not have to participate.

:wink:

At any rate, it's all about the content of our thought and belief, and whether or not we can justifiably say anything at all with regard to non-linguistic beasties based upon what we can know of our own...

:grin: Yeah.

The simple answer is you can't. All attempts to prove otherwise are merely attempts to extrapolate and arrive at conclusions based on observation and experimentation. Knowing. Truly knowing can only be down va communication with the subject of your interest. Even in human behavior the best profilers know its all just a guess in the end.

Anyone interested in a more formal approach to this? It's the contention underwriting a few recent threads.

I could argue that "mental content" (consciousness, thought, meaning, belief, etc.) is a construct, i.,e., does not "exist", if you like, in all animals, but I'm not sure you'd like it as I've already hammered away at this with Mmw in my post about Wittgenstein's Lion-Quote, and, because it is Ordinary Language Philosophy, I think it comes off as if I'm not playing by the rules because all I'm trying to do is get you to see a different angle rather than argue on the same "terms".