OK, then not all language consists of propositions. No?

Remember that if some words do not refer to beings, that is, are meaningless, — Samuel Lacrampe

No? — Banno

SO, what being does "No" refer to above?

And ...? — Samuel Lacrampe

What being does "and...?" refer to?

my previous point stands — Samuel Lacrampe

What being does "stands" refer to?

Will I go on?

• "No?" In this context, it has the same meaning as "do you disagree?", which can be a real state of mind.
• "And ...?" In this context, it has the same meaning as "what do you conclude?", and concluding is a real act.
• "stands" In this context, it as the same meaning as "has not been refuted", and refuting is a real act (so is not refuting).

My turn. According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". In that statement, the bolded words are not nouns, and therefore meaningless. The statement is therefore meaningless, and therefore cannot be true. The statement is a self-contradiction.

Now I'm confused. I don't think only nouns are meaningful. Far from it.

So that last post leaves me non plussed. I've no idea at the moment what your position is, or what in my position you object to, if anything.

So I'll just set out my position again. Looking for an entity called "the meaning of a word" is an unproductive process. It is better by far to look at what we do with those words and the sentences we use them to construct. For this reason it is also often unproductive to set out the definitions of an enquiry at its beginning, as suggested in the OP, and much more satisfactory to allow the way words are being used to progress with the discussion.

Now, where are we?

According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". — Samuel Lacrampe

I said no such thing.

I think you two are talking past each other in that you have different understandings of what counts as being. One of you two seems to slide in and out of equivocating "being" and "thing", while the other understands being in a broader sense. Quite ironic considering the OP :wink:

According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". — Samuel Lacrampe

I just read back, looking for this quote, or words that reflect it, and found nothing. Did Banno really say this, or did you make it up? :chin:

Thanks for you clarification on your position. Now do you believe that not all words refer to beings, or do you simply believe that, although they may exist, it is unproductive to look for these beings?

If the latter only, then you are free to believe this. I personally disagree, because it is important to clarify what each person means with their terms at the beginning of the discussion so as to avoid misunderstandings. As points out, we better make sure we mean the same thing when I use the term 'being' and you use the term 'thing'. But this disagreement is not major, and so we can leave it here.

If the former, then this is an error.
P1: To say that words have meanings is the same as to say that words point to beings. Words are created to express the being that is perceived, and not the opposite way around. Men first had to observe a tree before coming up with the word 'tree' to express what they observed. It makes no sense to suppose men first created the word 'tree' to express nothing, and only later on used that word to refer to tree they observed.
P2: All words have meanings. Otherwise propositions that contain those words would effectively be meaningless.
C: Therefore all words point to beings.

Now, those beings that words point to are either real or imaginary. E.g. a 'horse' points to a real being, and a 'unicorn' points to an imaginary being. I think you and I agree on this point. But they all point to a being nonetheless.

This could be. I'll redeem myself by giving my meaning of 'being'.
The term 'being' in philosophy is the same as 'thing'. Because that which is not being is nothing. Beings are categorized primarily as either real or imaginary, where real beings exist outside of a mind, and imaginary beings exist only in a mind. Although an imaginary being is not real, it is nonetheless not nothing.

To say that words have meanings is the same as to say that words point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe

You have made this claim several times. Each time I have denied it, and several times I have provided counterexamples of words that do not just refer to 'beings'.

According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful".
— Samuel Lacrampe

I said no such thing. — Banno

I just read back, looking for this quote, or words that reflect it, and found nothing. Did Banno really say this, or did you make it up? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

This was my understanding of the position up to that point, as per the quotes below. If my above statement does not reflect that position, then no worries. A minor misunderstanding.

The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word [...] But there isn't, of course. — Banno

Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"? — Banno

Nouns refer to things, real or otherwise. Lots of other words do not. — Banno

A minor misunderstanding. — Samuel Lacrampe

Cheers. Not an issue.

The confusion was that I had taken you to be claiming something very similar; since nouns are words that refer ('point') to things (beings?) I had taken you to be claiming that all words are nouns. And again, that's how I understand you in

To say that words have meanings is the same as to say that words point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe

To take one example, I asked what the word "No" points to in the sentence "No".You replied:

"No?" In this context, it has the same meaning as "do you disagree?", which can be a real state of mind. — Samuel Lacrampe

Which is not an answer, unless you think "No" points to a state of mind; but that would seem pretty hard to defend.

I suppose one might think that "no" points to a concept - perhaps the concept of negation. But that would simply be creating unnecessary entities - concepts - in order to support the theory that all words refer to something...

It seems to me to be much simpler to point out that "No" has several uses, including denying what has been previously claimed, and expressing surprise or disagreement.

It doesn't point to any being.

The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word [...] But there isn't, of course. — Banno

There is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since the meaning will change from one use to another.

Further, there is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since meanings are not things.

Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"? — Banno

Perhaps it should have been: Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"?

After all, who is to say that one meaning is real, another fake, misleading, erroneous? Mr Webster?

The Oxford does not set out the "real" meaning; it sets out various uses in terms of synonyms.

Nouns refer to things, real or otherwise. Lots of other words do not. — Banno

Adverbs, verbs, adjectives, conjuncts...

You have made this claim several times. Each time I have denied it, and several times I have provided counterexamples of words that do not just refer to 'beings'. — Banno

Adverbs, verbs, adjectives, conjuncts...[don't refer to things] — Banno

Perhaps, as Mr Ninja suggested, we should clarify what we mean by 'being' and 'thing'. A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing.

Under such a definition, words such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and conjuncts still point to beings.

• E.g. The word 'jump' is a verb which points to the act that is jumping. Actions are beings.
• E.g. The word 'here' is an adverb which points to a location. Locations are beings.
• E.g. The word 'salty' is an adjective which points to a flavour. Flavours are beings.
• E.g. The word 'meanwhile' is a conjunct (I think) which points to a particular time period. Time periods are beings.

It seems to me to be much simpler to point out that "No" has several uses, including denying what has been previously claimed, and expressing surprise or disagreement. — Banno

I agree; but I also claim that the act of denying, the state of being surprised, and state of disagreement are all beings. E.g. I would never know what the word 'surprise' means if I had never observed a person in that state before. What I observed could not have been nothing.

There is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since the meaning will change from one use to another. — Banno

I agree with this. Many words have the same meaning (synonyms); and many meanings have the same word (homonyms).

Further, there is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since meanings are not things. — Banno

But there is a thing, a being, as defined in my previous post. To side with philosophers like Aristotle and Hume, we apprehend meanings by observation. And to observe is to observe something.

A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'.

A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing. — Samuel Lacrampe

Really? :chin: A being is a living thing; a thing may be living or not. As you say, "thing" is the most general term, while being is more constrained (to living things). Of course, I only observe how these terms are conventionally used. There is no absolute authority on word definitions, and this is probably a Good Thing. But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning if the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers.

Few people would agree that an action is a being; most people would agree that an action is a thing. :chin:

A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe

Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. I know the meaning of X-ray, although I will never sense one directly, as I don't have that ability.

A being is a living thing; a thing may be living or not. As you say, "thing" is the most general term, while being is more constrained (to living things). — Pattern-chaser

I am using the term as used by Aristotle, Aquinas, and the rest of the scholastic crew. Admittedly, you are right that the meaning is mostly associated with the term 'thing' in common language. I just think using the term 'being' makes you sound like a boss. :cheer:

But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning if the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers. — Pattern-chaser

Correct. And this is the main point of the OP; that words that have the potential to be ambiguous should be defined at the start of the discussion. And once established, the definitions should stay the same for the remainder of the discussion.

Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. — Pattern-chaser

The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? Note that talking about its light wavelength would not cut it; because that is not its meaning in the common language. Even before people knew about wavelengths, they knew the meaning of the word 'blue'.

Also, to use Aristotelian terminology, the wavelength description of 'blue' is merely its material cause, not its formal cause (meaning). :nerd:

I know the meaning of X-ray, although I will never sense one directly, as I don't have that ability. — Pattern-chaser

In this case, the meaning of 'X-ray' in the common language is the same for you as it is for everyone else: an electromagnetic wave of certain wavelength or something. But this is different than the meaning of 'blue' for a blind man versus a sighted man.

But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning of the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers. — Pattern-chaser

Correct. And this is the main point of the OP; that words that have the potential to be ambiguous should be defined at the start of the discussion. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think this might be too restrictive. For a start, almost all English words have more than one meaning: they are (nearly) all ambiguous. It is impractical to define every word that is scheduled for use in a given discussion. There are just too many of them, and too many different meanings. In some discussions, some words will be used to carry several different meanings. It is pointless to moan about this. It's just a fact of life, and we need to accept it as it is, and deal with it (also as it is). English words are ambiguous. Fact. This is how human language works, right or wrong. I think you are preoccupied with "ought" instead of "is"? :chin:

All we can, and should, do is to attempt to communicate as clearly as we can, and that will sometimes require that we define some of the terms we are going to use, as a courtesy to our fellow debaters. I think that's as close as we can approach your preferred course.

Actually I agree with you. Instead of saying "at the start of the discussion", I should have said "as they come in the discussion". And then, only the key words are important, like 'being' in our previous discussion.

To add to this, I claim that to obtain general truths, like "x is always y", then it is important to find the essence of x, that is, its essential properties.

There is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since the meaning will change from one use to another.
— Banno
I agree with this. Many words have the same meaning (synonyms); and many meanings have the same word (homonyms). — Samuel Lacrampe

That's fine, but does not go far enough. What I'm saying I that the meaning changes from one use to another. "Peter likes vanilla" does not have one, fixed meaning; and it's not just because there are multiple Peters. And while it might be tempting to think of this as just context, it's more than that. The sky is blue, but not all of it, and not the same shade f blue, and for the Greeks it was bronze.

No theory that fixes meaning will work.

Meaning is not fixed.

Perhaps, as Mr Ninja suggested, we should clarify what we mean by 'being' and 'thing'. A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing.

Under such a definition, words such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and conjuncts still point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe

All you've done is claimed that words all refer to beings, and then defined the "being" as the thing that a word refers to.

So what?

Take salty: an adjective which points to a flavour. I had a porterhouse yesterday that had been salted on one side before cooking. It had little in common with the salty smoked bacon I had for breakfast, nor with the Pad Thai; indeed, that saltiness is complimented with umami, a taste I could not name apart from "salty" when I was a child.

What is the being these have in common? You might pretend that they all have the same taste, but that, in the end, is bullshit.

Why not just admit that we use one word to talk about lots of different things?

See how that sentence did not talk about meaning?

That is, stop talking in terms of meaning and instead look to the way we actually use words.

A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe

...and yet they do indeed use these words. How can that be, if your account is right?

So this example works in my favour more than in yours.

Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. — Pattern-chaser

The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm not sure. But you could ask Helen Keller (if she was still alive), who managed to teach deaf, dumb and blind subjects to communicate and interact with other humans in the real world. This is an astonishing achievement, in my view, which just shows how very good humans are at understanding stuff (at least in this particular way). :smile:

The sky is blue, but not all of it, and not the same shade f blue — Banno

Yes, the sky need not be completely blue, and there may be multiple shades, all referred by the word 'blue'. But both cases have some portion of blue, which makes the statements true. If the sky for a particular day was completely orange, then the statement would be false. If meanings did not have some essential properties, then how could we differentiate true from false statements?

Take salty: an adjective which points to a flavour. I had a porterhouse yesterday that had been salted on one side before cooking. It had little in common with the salty smoked bacon I had for breakfast, nor with the Pad Thai; indeed, that saltiness is complimented with umami, a taste I could not name apart from "salty" when I was a child. What is the being these have in common? — Banno

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. It is either true or false that you perceive the porterhouse, smoked bacon, and pad thai as 'salty', used as one common meaning. If true, then indeed the flavours must have one thing in common, even if the flavours are not exactly the same, inasmuch as there are different shades of blue. It may be true that the porterhouse, bacon, and pad thai are more salty than avocados; inasmuch as the colours turquoise, aqua, and azure are more blue than the colour orange.