Not my cup of tea. — Banno

Always a devastating answer. Shows you take the big questions seriously.

I suppose Harry might have some variation of Kripke's causal chains of reference in mind; but it would be a long and odd stretch to say that causal chains of reference referred to mental images. — Banno

You can be wrong in statements about Harry because I understand such statements making a claim about something that is not inside your head. But reality is of negative nature.

What shall "actual Harry Hindu" mean? The actual mental image?
If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person.
If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko

Did I not already explain that your mental image is an effect (a representation) of the the real thing? Mental images are real, just as a mirror image is real and part of the world. This is why we can use words to refer to either, and it is typically understood which one is being referred to within the context of the conversation. It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? It allows for us to be wrong or inaccurate, which happens often, when describing things outside of our minds. How do you explain the possibility of being inaccurate with your descriptions if you are always referring to something in the world?

The problem with these arguments against my position is that they don't take into account all the attributes of communication and how we use words. No one elses' explanations have been able to account for how non-established uses of words arise within a language system or how we can be wrong in our descriptions of the world. Any description of language and meaning has to take these things into account to be of any value.

Harry can't see it. Odd. Let's be clear: Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu. Yet if Harry's theory of meaning were right, he would be.

your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, — Harry Hindu


Indeed. Which of them is Harry Hindu? — Banno

The one that is absent of your biased and skewed mental representations of me.

Apart from solipsism I'm not aware of any philosophy where a statement about the world would not refer to something outside the mind. — Heiko

Nonsense.
1) The mind is part of the world.

2) We can talk about the contents of other people's minds. i.e "Banno is delusional and believes that he is a chicken."

It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? — Harry Hindu

To both of course as the Kantian thing encompasses both: The real thing and it's mental image.
This is already clear if I was to ask whereof the mental image is. This is an intrinsic reference.
If I make a statement about Harry I make a claim about you, not any mental image. I would need to explicitely distinguish that I only meant my imagination if I did not make such a claim.

It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? — Harry Hindu

Here we have the reason for the debunked theory of meaning Harry exposes: Stove's worst argument. Harry never eats eggs, only images-of-eggs.

That'll do.

To both of course as the Kantian thing encompasses both: The real thing and it's mental image.
This is already clear if I was to ask whereof the mental image is. This is an intrinsic reference.
If I make a statement about Harry I make a claim about you, not any mental image. I would need to explicitely distinguish that I only meant my imagination if I did not make such a claim. — Heiko

Right, so your claims are always accurate, and you know that they are always accurate.

All the claims on these forums are referring to actual states-of-affairs that truly exist outside of everyone's heads - even though most of the claims on these forums contradict other claims, they are all referring to actual states-of-affairs that exist outside of everyone's mental representations of those states-of-affairs. When people make claims about the existence of their god, they are all correct, and every god that has ever been claimed to exist actually does exist because people always refer to things outside of their heads, and are always aware of the difference.

That is just patently ridiculous. We make claims. Not everyone can be right, but we can all be wrong.

Here we have the reason for the debunked theory of meaning Harry exposes: Stove's worst argument. Harry never eats eggs, only images-of-eggs. — Banno

So Banno is always right. All of his claims are objective in the sense that they always refer to actual states of affairs outside his own head. Banno is omniscient and we never knew.

If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person. — Heiko

Here you are merely using a language shortcut to refer to the person. You are actually saying, "This is a picture of <insert some name here>." Obviously, you don't mean that the person is actually a picture and not a person. This extra information is garnered from the context.

The other problem is that that picture is just a representation of that person at one moment in time. That person has aged, is in a different mood, etc. and is not the same person as in the picture. The picture only shows one side of the person as it is two-dimensional. So the picture, just as your mental representations, do not exhaust everything there is of that person. So the picture gives me an idea of what the person looks like, but doesn't give me any other information about the person other than that.

If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko

And here you have your words referring to your intent to be funny - not to any actual state-of-affairs that exists outside of your mind, just as a lie refers to my intent to mislead - to plant false ideas in your head so that you will act accordingly.

Here you are merely using a language shortcut to refer to the person. You are actually saying, "This is a picture of <insert some name here>." — Harry Hindu

I do not see how the dialectic of form and content will save you here. The very existence of the shortcut should tell you something. You know the Kantian thing is in and of itself. When trying to communicate with others we strive to talk about the same piece of reality. We have to do so, because we want to talk about the same thing.
You will not get out of the affair when we talk about "Harry". Nor will the person shown on the picture.

Claiming that others have an argument is not a substitute to come up with an argument of your own. Maybe they do have compelling arguments, but you would not know it if you cannot say what it is. If you and I are going to have a long term discussion, I expect you to philosophize, and not merely point to other philosophers. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to argue. The point I'm trying to make is that discovering 'truth' or even approaching any kind of agreement via the Socratic method does not work. The fact that many philosophers have developed critiques of it is my argument (or at least the evidence for it). I'm not substituting their arguments for one of my own, I'm using the existence of their arguments as evidence in its support. The very fact that 2000 years after the project was first started (in written form at least) there exists in published form almost every conceivable opinion on the matter, still held by intelligent, well-educated people, demonstrates that rational debate has not even narrowed the field, let alone produced any meaningful consensus.

I do not see how the dialectic of form and content will save you here. The very existence of the shortcut should tell you something. — Heiko

Exactly. It tells me that you mean something other than what you literally said.

You know the Kantian thing is in and of itself. When trying to communicate with others we strive to talk about the same piece of reality. We have to do so, because we want to talk about the same thing.
You will not get out of the affair when we talk about "Harry". Nor will the person shown on the picture. — Heiko

Whatever, bro. You think that you can talk about things without having any mental representations of those things - as if your mental representations of those things don't (causally) influence your word use about those things. That is absurd.

I'll try to add some value to add some unique value to the discussion, without quoting previous comments:

Sometimes, people may start a discussion about something that they don't know what it is, *because* it's exactly what they started a discussion for - to ask others to help them define and understand better what is this thing they're asking about - in someone else's eye.

Generally, yes, any other discussion that is being started without defining itself well from the start, is pointless, I suppose. They'll be infinite red herring fallacies in such a discussion.

But when starting a discussion about an extremely abstract concept such as "freedom", which can mean millions of different things, depending on the word's "context". Sometimes explaining what can be known about something can be complex enough that it can be worth starting a discussion on.

It's not like we're like scientists, who define words via materialistic things they observe and find, in which case, it is probably always pointless to discuss how to understand a certain word.

You think that you can talk about things without having any mental representations of those things — Harry Hindu

Of what? Words aren't things either. So "mental representation" does not mean all that much - if anything when I start thinking about it. It is m, e, n, ...
Do you know Eliza?

The latest posts by you and Banno are great examples of how your word use refers to your mental representations because your posts are just inaccurate and misconstrued representations of what I have said throughout this thread.

As I have already said numerous times, words are things as much as bumps in the night and tree rings are things, and they are all effects of prior causes and therefore carry information/meaning about their prior causes.

Harry, I simply think you are falling behind.
Whenever someone talks about the world your statement is "Ah, you are referring to your thoughts". Cheap enough, everone knows there is a particular noumenon whose only content is to be no noumenon. Harry: "Ah, that's a noumenon." Okay. Right. But then Harry, who just pointed out that if ppl talk about things they are talking about their mental images, goes on and tries to explain something talking of "actual things". Wait! Didn't he just make up the identity of thing and mind. You did not mean to talk about your actual mental representation there, right? As benevolent readers we can slip over this. No problem at all. A noumenon saying "I'm not a noumenon". - Hahaha. How funny. You are pretty inconsistent there, Harry.
Go on! I'm done.

Yeah, well, I suppose in a sense this thread seeks a definition of "definition".

In that context, my poiint is that a set of synonyms does not set out what we might call the meaning of some term. — Banno

Not really, its more about the neccesity of providing a definition on the words used when their meaning is not clear to the receptor.

Of course a set of synonyms usually isn't precise enough when someone requires a definition of a word used. Hence a description, possibly accompanied with a synonym is a better way to provide a definition. Of course neither of those is the meaning, it merely is a different representation of the meaning that might be better understood than the single word that was used.

As for the question you ask, I was confused there too for a while, but I think I've got it now. Yes, I prefer a human-centric philosophy, and perspective on life, the universe and everything. But I want an honest view, so I would avoid projecting the meaning I see onto the world. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it is not part of the thing we assign or ascribe it to. That kind of projection seems to be very easy for us to slip into, as we do it a lot. I try to avoid it whenever I can, or comment if it seems someone else is doing so.

Does that answer your question? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I don't think humans can really avoid projecting, though it can be quite usefull to be aware of doing so and realize that meaning is in the eye of the beholder and all of us are beholders. For an honest vieuw though one can't exlude the meaning and values we appoint to things in our world. When practicing science we should try avoid it, but when it comes to the other neccesities of life, I'm not so sure we should exlude it from the equasion in every instance.

So your argument is an appeal to authority. Your point is valid but weak; and an equally weak and valid argument cancels it out: The fact is a lot of philosophers have used the method in their philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft.

But now, let's philosophize instead of talking about philosophers. Do you disagree that concepts have essential properties? Do you disagree that the essential properties of the concept 'triangle' are 'flat surface' + '3 straight sides'? Do you disagree we know this because we cannot falsify the hypothesis by coming up with an example of the concept which does not contain these properties? That last one describes the Socratic Method.

So your argument is an appeal to authority. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, the exact opposite, it's an appeal to the fact that multiple 'authorities' continue to exist despite 2000 years of Socratic dialect.

The fact is a lot of philosophers have used the method in their philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft. — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes, but they have clearly achieved absolutely nothing by it, otherwise there would not continue to be a lot of equally intelligent philosophers who disagree with them. I've yet to hear your account of that fact. If Socratic dialogue actually clarifies definitions, then what is the cause of its utter failure to do so for any metaphysical term in ordinary language despite 2000 years of trying?

Do you disagree that concepts have essential properties? — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes. Clearly the concept of 'meaning' does not have essential properties, if it did we could have elucidated them by now and the vast range of propositions about mean which continue to be held by perfectly intelligent people is testament to the fact that we have not.

Do you disagree that the essential properties of the concept 'triangle' are 'flat surface' + '3 straight sides'? Do you disagree we know this because we cannot falsify the hypothesis by coming up with an example of the concept which does not contain these properties? — Samuel Lacrampe

What is a three-sided shape on a non-euclidean surface then?

Yes, but they have clearly achieved absolutely nothing by it, otherwise there would not continue to be a lot of equally intelligent philosophers who disagree with them. I've yet to hear your account of that fact. — Pseudonym

Easy. Your intelligent philosophers can be wrong. Proof: Either the Socratic Method to find essences works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then those intelligent philosophers I named were wrong in their reasoning, thus showing that even intelligent philosophers can be wrong. If it does, then those intelligent philosophers you named were wrong, thus showing the same thing. Either way, some intelligent philosophers must be wrong.

Your insistence on talking about philosophers instead of philosophizing about the topic at hand begs the question: Is the topic so hard for you that it is pointless to explore it for yourself without appealing to other's opinion? What's more, you seem to know their opinion, but not know their reasoning behind it. Thus even if they were right, we would be no closer to acquiring a better understanding of the topic.

Clearly the concept of 'meaning' does not have essential properties, if it did we could have elucidated them by now and the vast range of propositions about mean which continue to be held by perfectly intelligent people is testament to the fact that we have not. — Pseudonym

I can prove the essential properties exist without spending the time to find them. We can use the concept 'meaning' in a coherent sentence; and we can use the concept 'duck' in a coherent sentence. And those two concepts are not interchangeable in a sentence without changing the message. Thus whatever the concept 'meaning' is, it does not coincide with the concept 'duck'. This is sufficient to prove that 'duck' is missing some essential properties that makes a meaning a 'meaning', and 'meaning' is missing some essential properties that makes a duck a 'duck'. And this implies that these beings have essential properties.

What is a three-sided shape on a non-euclidean surface then? — Pseudonym

The answer to your direct question is: not a triangle; for a rounded three-sided shape when flattened no longer looks like a triangle. But this is besides the point. The point is that, right or wrong, you are attempting to falsify my hypothesis, that is to say, using the Socratic Method.

Your insistence on talking about philosophers instead of philosophizing about the topic at hand begs the question: Is the topic so hard for you that it is pointless to explore it for yourself without appealing to other's opinion? — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you may be missing the point of what I'm trying to say in this thread, so I will try again. My argument is this (note the absence of any appeal to any philosopher, this is my argument, though many others have made it before me);

P1. The words we are struggling to define have been in use for thousands of years.
P2. The method of Socratic dialect has been around, and been used to determine the meaning of these words for thousands of years.
P3. There is little or no agreement on the meaning of these words.
P4. (By inference) A method which has been practiced for thousands of years but has failed to work probably doesn't work.
C1. The Socratic dialect method does not work for establishing the meaning of disputable terms.

The fact that philosopher dispute meaning is evidence for that proposition, it is not necessary for the proposition to determine what they say or analyse their ideas, it is sufficient to say that they have been involved in the Socratic method collectively for thousands of years and yet still disagree with each other as much as they ever did.

I accept your clarification. Now to find a flaw in the argument.

I have an issue about the very subject of the argument: "words we are struggling to define". We judge those words as being "hard to define" precisely because they are challenging through the Socratic Method. But focusing only on those words is cherry picking, and does not account for the words we judge as being "easy to define" through the Socratic Method.

I would also challenge P3. Most words judged as hard to define have resulted in more agreements than disagreements. E.g. The definition of 'knowing' as: 'justify' + 'true' + 'belief', is mostly agreed upon; and those who dispute this definition nevertheless agree that it is close to the mark, as the exceptions found were rare.

I do not dispute that some words are challenging to define; but I claim that:
(1) As far as I know, it is the best method we have.
(2) Even if we do not reach a perfect definition, the method gets us closer to it.
(3) When we do not reach a perfect definition, it is still that very method that allows us to know that.

Some words are sometimes easy to define. Other times, and in other contexts, defining terms is next to impossible. And all human languages are stuffed with ambiguity and vagueness. Why would we even think we could define terms precisely, except in unusual circumstances? :chin:

focusing only on those words is cherry picking, and does not account for the words we judge as being "easy to define" through the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, I'm quite happy to admit that there are words we find easy to define, but I doubt many of them find their definition through the Socratic method. Most find their definition through a combination of factors, but mainly common usage.

Most words judged as hard to define have resulted in more agreements than disagreements. E.g. The definition of 'knowing' as: 'justify' + 'true' + 'belief', is mostly agreed upon; and those who dispute this definition nevertheless agree that it is close to the mark, as the exceptions found were rare. — Samuel Lacrampe

Knowledge as justified true belief has been in doubt since Gettier but the point of my argument is not about consensus, it's about how we justify the process. So what if lot's of people agree, how does that make the one who doesn't more wrong, and if it doesn't automatically make him more wrong, then what method are you going to put forward to convince him otherwise. He's already heard the arguments and still does not agree, what then?

(1) As far as I know, it is the best method we have. — Samuel Lacrampe

I don't dispute this - it doesn't make the method meaningful or pointed though.

(2) Even if we do not reach a perfect definition, the method gets us closer to it. — Samuel Lacrampe

I simply don't agree, just look at the Phil Papers survey on philosophical positions, most are split almost 50/50, we are no closer to agreement now than when the Socratic method was first proposed.

(3) When we do not reach a perfect definition, it is still that very method that allows us to know that. — Samuel Lacrampe

Again, I don't agree, we can use simple empiricism to see that we don't agree, read the words of two philosophers on the subject and infer from your understanding of their different meanings that they don't agree.

Most find their definition through a combination of factors, but mainly common usage. — Pseudonym

But common usage IS the test used in the Socratic Method to verify or falsify a hypothesis definition. Thus we are not really in disagreement here.

Again, I don't agree, we can use simple empiricism to see that we don't agree, read the words of two philosophers on the subject and infer from your understanding of their different meanings that they don't agree. — Pseudonym

Their opinion alone is not valuable without the reason to back it up. And that reason is finding counter-examples that falsify the definition, in other words, the Socratic Method.

Knowledge as justified true belief has been in doubt since Gettier but the point of my argument is not about consensus, it's about how we justify the process. So what if lot's of people agree, how does that make the one who doesn't more wrong, and if it doesn't automatically make him more wrong, then what method are you going to put forward to convince him otherwise. He's already heard the arguments and still does not agree, what then? — Pseudonym

My point was not about the number of people who agree vs disagree. It was the fact that even those who don't agree are not in full disagreement, and simply find the accepted definition to be insufficient.

Take 'knowledge' again. The essential properties of 'justified' + 'true' + 'belief' were found by Plato using the Socratic Method, and the definition was accepted until Gettier in the 20th century. This means the original definition must have been mostly right if it held up for that long. And even assuming that Gettier has successfully demonstrated that some property is missing, this did not demonstrate the three properties as inessential, only insufficient. And finally, it was still the Socratic Method which allowed him to discover that some property was missing, by falsifying the definition with counter-examples.

I just don't understand your position. After all, the Socratic Method is nothing but the scientific method [observation, hypothesis, testing through verification and falsification, repeat] applied to definition of terms as used in the common language. To dispute the Socratic Method is also to dispute the scientific method, is it not?

, hello.
Because we can prove that all meaningful words have essential properties. Then the fact that we are able to use all words in a meaningful sentence shows that we have some knowledge of their meanings. We just need to uncover the definition by separating the essential properties from the non-essential ones; which is done through the Socratic Method.

↪Pattern-chaser
, hello.
Because we can prove that all meaningful words have essential properties. Then the fact that we are able to use all words in a meaningful sentence shows that we have some knowledge of their meanings. We just need to uncover the definition by separating the essential properties from the non-essential ones; which is done through the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe

I rather think that we sift the intended meaning from the words of another by context, as we have always done. It isn't a detective story, and the Socratic method doesn't apply because it isn't used. If you think it should apply, that's a different matter. But it is not normally used by humans in the way you describe. I wonder if you are talking about ought instead of is? :chin:

But common usage IS the test used in the Socratic Method to verify or falsify a hypothesis definition. Thus we are not really in disagreement here. — Samuel Lacrampe

No, if it were then philosophers would have to be linguists and definitions could easily be resolved by the dictionary. The staff of the various dictionaries put a tremendous amount of effort into working out the most common way a term is used, but many philosophies deliberately question the common use.

Their opinion alone is not valuable without the reason to back it up. And that reason is finding counter-examples that falsify the definition, in other words, the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe

I wasn't commenting on the value, only that, contrary to your assertion, it is not the Socratic method which allows me to know when two philosophers disagree, a simple empirical study of their words does that. The expression "I disagree", for example, would do the job.

This means the original definition must have been mostly right if it held up for that long. — Samuel Lacrampe

No. Consider the earth-centred solar system, the flat-earth, humours as a cause of disease, phlogiston, creationism. An idea's persistence has no bearing on its rightness.

And finally, it was still the Socratic Method which allowed him to discover that some property was missing, by falsifying the definition with counter-examples. — Samuel Lacrampe

He didn't "discover" some property was missing. He claimed some property was missing, others disagreed, and still do. That's the point, he simply made a claim it was grammatically possible to make and no one had any means of determining if he was right or not.

the Socratic Method is nothing but the scientific method [observation, hypothesis, testing through verification and falsification, repeat] applied to definition of terms as used in the common language. — Samuel Lacrampe

Again, if that was the case then the work has already been done. The staff at the various dictionaries have already invested far more time than you or I ever could in determine exactly what the common usage of words is in the real world. So what more work needs to be done?

P1. The words we are struggling to define have been in use for thousands of years.
P2. The method of Socratic dialect has been around, and been used to determine the meaning of these words for thousands of years.
P3. There is little or no agreement on the meaning of these words.
P4. (By inference) A method which has been practiced for thousands of years but has failed to work probably doesn't work.
C1. The Socratic dialect method does not work for establishing the meaning of disputable terms. — Pseudonym

The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word; and further, if this meaning-of-a-word were identified, we would all agree on it.

But there isn't, of course.

Both. I think it is applied because even your description of sifting the meaning from a proposition by context is still using the Socratic Method on a particular test. I also think it ought to be applied, because it is the scientific method applied to definition of terms as used in the common language. If the scientific method works, then this should work too.