How about:

Meaning is what it ought to be.

Meaning is use in a particular language game. — Marchesk

I think ‘a domain of discourse’ is a better expression than ‘language game’. Words are used in domains of discourse in which they have shared meaning/s which the participants understand even if they disagree about their meaning. In fact in order to disagree, the discussion needs to be confined to a domain of discourse or ‘language game’. Otherwise you end up with incommensurability [which is frequently encountered in current culture.]

Tarski deserves a mention too.

I think meaning is 'the realization or recognition of a connection or relation to something'. That is, something has meaning or significance to another when they relate. Does logic have anything to do with this? I think logic implies a connection/relation because the term 'illogical' implies the lack of.

I think ‘a domain of discourse’ is a better expression than ‘language game’. Words are used in domains of discourse in which they have shared meaning/s which the participants understand even if they disagree about their meaning. In fact in order to disagree, the discussion needs to be confined to a domain of discourse or ‘language game’. Otherwise you end up with incommensurability [which is frequently encountered in current culture.] — Wayfarer

Which raises the question of whether words can be lifted outside of their domain of discourse and retain their meaning. That's the charge against philosophers, right?

No, it’s a symptom of where the world is at right now. ‘Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold’. The disintegration of shared meanings. Not really specific to philosophy although philosophy will often reflect that state of affairs.

To improvise a bit on the theme of the OP - I think meaning is lived. It is something you have to bodily engage with. Skilful coping is one way of finding meaning. Conversely, the absence of lack of meaning signifies a disconnection or lack or the absence of a vital connection.

Significance.

The alternative to oblivion.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. Tree rings (the effect) mean the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year (the cause). What you mean by your use of words (effect) is what you intend to convey (cause).

The metaphor of the wise blind men and the elephant comes to mind. :)

I do think a lot of these can be collapsed together into the two seemingly opposed camps of externalism and internalism, but even there the oppositionality is somewhat misconceived, IMHO..

The best analogy here, I think, is to the relationship between value and price in economics.

Prices as we know them in the market (comparable to the shared, objective, externalist meanings) are the relatively stable precipitate of a vast multitude of fluctuating individual valuing actions, where people are exchanging the less valued (on their present personal scale of values, which may change over time) for the more valued (this being comparable to the little ongoing process of attaching/detaching meaning to things that each of us has going on internally).

Similar process with language itself in fact - although that's meaning in an even narrower sense, still it shows the same sort of relationship between a vast tiling of shifting individual usages resulting in relatively stable overall objective patterns of shared use.

" Meaning is reference to states of affairs. "

That sounds about right, in terms of D.M. Armstrong's "States of Affairs" ontology. Meaning seems to be a set of relations between various mental constructs (including feelings).

Values.

A solution to the problem of meaning is getting dicier by the minute.

@Harry Hindu

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

I like your definition very much and would like to ask if you can explain a bit further in terms of abstracts or principles and how they are represented in our day to day business. For example, "how and why does the cause assign meaning to the effect? What is the end game (if any)? Or rather, how should we perceive the whole mechanism of cause and effect in relation to meaning?"

All meaning is the result of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between things. Last I checked, the SEP categorized all theories of meaning into two camps, both work from symbolism.

So what is needed for meaning is something to become a symbol, something to become symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between the two.

Pavlov's dog.

All meaning is attributed solely by virtue of this correlational process. As it pertains to all things ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written...

All senses of all terms, including the term meaning, acquire their significance, their importance, their "sense" in this very way. All meaning is attributed.

There are no exceptions.

The process for meaningful attribution can - and most certainly does - happen prior to language. For reminders' sake...

So what is needed for meaning is something to become a symbol, something to become symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between the two. — creativesoul

At conception, no creature is capable of drawing a correlation, connection, and/or association between that which becomes symbol and that which becomes symbolized. Hence, at conception there is no thought or belief, because all thought and belief is meaningful, and there can be no attribution of meaning this early on. Thus, like knowledge, thought and belief are accrued.

It's the content of the correlations that becomes the target of this investigation. What can be rightfully said about meaningful non-linguistic thought and belief? Based upon the groundwork laid heretofore I ask the following...

What sorts of things could become symbol and symbolized(become meaningful) to a non linguistic creature?

There can be no linguistic construct operating in non linguistic thought and belief. They must be able to draw connections, correlations and/or associations. That which becomes symbol cannot already be one to the creature. The same is true regarding that which becomes symbolized. So, prior to the creature drawing correlations between things, and these things becoming symbol and symbolized, they must already be things in and of themselves. They must be things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming symbol and/or symbolized, and they must be directly perceptible.

Harry Hindu

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu


I like your definition very much and would like to ask if you can explain a bit further in terms of abstracts or principles and how they are represented in our day to day business. For example, "how and why does the cause assign meaning to the effect? What is the end game (if any)? Or rather, how should we perceive the whole mechanism of cause and effect in relation to meaning?" — BrianW

[My emboldening.]

Read what Harry said again. Carefully. The cause does not assign meaning to the effect. Harry defines meaning to be the relationship between cause and effect. This is what you and I call "a cause-effect relationship". Harry calls it "meaning".

Yes, I'm baffled too. :chin: