How did you understand ''it's raining''? Can you describe what it is that you apprehend from it? — TheMadFool

If I go outside, or look out the window, I will see rain.

If someone tells me ''it's raining'' then I would take it as ''at this time it's raining''. The speaker, because it's obvious, doesn't mention ''at this time''. This is how I understand the phrase ''it's raining''. The reference is there. — TheMadFool

But we already get the "at this time" from "is", which makes it redundant. So "time" would be your reference in "at this time it's raining"?

Can you answer this question? "Planet Earth is blue" refers to what?
A: Earth.
B: Planet Earth being blue.
C: Other.

I don't think that's correct.

:up: :ok:

Why not? I already gave an example of and understandable sentence where no reference is completed. "it's raining". What does the "it" refer to? Nothing. — Purple Pond

How can something be understandable without reference? What does it mean to "understand" in your book?

"It" refers to the state of affairs - the conditions outside - the weather. What else would it be referring to? What do you mean when you say, "It is raining"? What information are you trying to relay? If I were to look out the window and see that it is raining and you tell me that it is raining - wouldn't that be redundant since I already see that it is raining? How can the statement, "it is raining" be redundant if the statement doesn't refer to anything?

Also, when translating languages, what is it that you are translating? What the words refer to.

If I go outside, or look out the window, I will see rain. — Purple Pond

Exactly. Why would you look out the window, or go outside, instead of look in the refrigerator or pour a glass of water? Because the state of affairs that the sentence refers to is outside and not in the kitchen.

In my opinion, Alan Watts nailed this explanation in a lecture of his.

The analogy was made between the use of words and that of a rabbit snare; neither are needed for what they are frequently directly perceived as, but rather what their existence implies the obtaining of.

For instance, with the use of the rabbit snare, you catch the meat of the rabbit for future nourishment or whatever other purpose. Similarly, we use words to encapsulate a desired state of affairs and establish them as so, and once this state of affairs has been communicated, we are no longer in need of the words, for their purpose has been fulfilled.

How can something be understandable without reference? What does it mean to "understand" in your book? — Harry Hindu

Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning.

"It" refers to the state of affairs - the conditions outside - the weather. — Harry Hindu

No it doesn't. The weather or "the states of affairs", is the rain. It cannot perform the raining.

What else would it be referring to? — Harry Hindu

How about nothing?

What do you mean when you say, "It is raining"? What information are you trying to relay? — Harry Hindu

It depends on the context. Most of the time the speaker means that you'll need an umbrella to go outside or you will get wet.

If I were to look out the window and see that it is raining and you tell me that it is raining - wouldn't that be redundant since I already see that it is raining? How can the statement, "it is raining" be redundant if the statement doesn't refer to anything? — Harry Hindu

The information is redundant because I already know that it is raining, not the sentence. The sentence is fine.

Also, when translating languages, what is it that you are translating? What the words refer to. — Harry Hindu

No you're not. You're translating the meaning of the sentence.

Exactly. Why would you look out the window, or go outside, instead of look in the refrigerator or pour a glass of water? Because the state of affairs that the sentence refers to is outside and not in the kitchen. — Harry Hindu

So the "it" in "it's raining" refers to outside?

"It" is a pronoun. Pronouns stand in as proxy for nouns. Nouns are persons, places, or things. "It" refers to a person, place, or thing, if for no other reason than that's just a matter of how English works people. It's not mysterious...

:worry:

When talking about the statement "It is raining", the term "it" refers to the current events/state of affairs/what's happening/etc. We all know this to be true. That's why we look outside to check to see if it is the case...

Can you answer this question? "Planet Earth is blue" refers to what?
A: Earth.
B: Planet Earth being blue.
C: Other. — Purple Pond

That question is based upon a misunderstanding of what and how reference works...

You're conflating a few things here. "Planet Earth" refers to a particular celestial body that we've named "Earth". "Blue" refers to a particular visible wavelength that we've named "blue".

"Planet Earth is blue" doesn't refer to anything. It uses pre-existing names and their referents to say something about the one.

Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning. — Purple Pond

Why are you answering a question with a question? What do you mean by "understand" and "meaning"?

Understanding is knowing. Knowing is having a set of rules for interpreting sensory data. Words, either spoken or written, are in the form of sensory data (sounds and scribbles). To understand words is to have a set of rules for converting those sounds and scribbles into what they refer to in the world. This is how you learned what words mean. You were shown pictures or people would point and name the object pictured or referenced. What words mean is what they refer to. Words that refer have meaning and are understandable. "Words" that don't refer are just sounds with no reference. Your not really using language if you aren't referring to anything. You're just making sounds, or writing scribbles, that don't mean anything. Exclamations refer to the speaker's emotional state and their intent to express it.

The weather or "the states of affairs", is the rain. It cannot perform the raining. — Purple Pond

The rain is a type of weather.

"It" could also refer to the conditions, or what is the case. It is the case that it is raining. When people use this sentence, they are informing another of a state of affairs, or the conditions somewhere.

The information is redundant because I already know that it is raining, not the sentence. The sentence is fine. — Purple Pond

What is the information? You keep using these words without the slightest idea about what they mean and how they all relate together. I think you need to define, "understand", "know", "meaning", and "information" and see where we stand once you do that.

Understanding is knowing. Knowing is having a set of rules for interpreting sensory data. — Harry Hindu

Not even on the same planet as how I define those two terms.

Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning. — Purple Pond

But meaning exists only in context, and it seems to be this context that's giving you problems?

I don't know if I noticed that comment from Purple Pond. I'd wonder what Purple Pond would have in mind with meaning that doesn't involve reference in any manner.

I'd wonder what Purple Pond would have in mind with meaning that doesn't involve reference in any manner. — Terrapin Station

Me too. :smile:

Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language. Thus, not all meaning involves reference. That said, I'm not sure what Purple Pond is saying here, because there are all sorts of things that are understandable that are not meaningful... until after they're understood.

One can understand that touching fire causes pain even if the one in question is language less. Meaning is attributed within the experience. The creature draws a correlation between it's behaviour and what happened immediately afterwards, The creature learned something, and by doing so, attributed meaning to the act and the fire. The fire became meaningful and/or significant to the creature after the connection was made between touching it and the pain that ensued. The creature attributed/recognized causality.

So, not all meaning involves reference, and not all understanding is of something that is already meaningful.

Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.”

What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual language structures?

I’m of the mind that mental acts are images, and meaning is prior to language, insofar as meaning is merely a judgement on conceptual referents presented to it by reason.

On the other hand, if Fodor is right, meaning won’t be prior to language, at least of the mental variety. Then we’d have to determine if the mental variety is different than the overall objective variety, such that meaning could still be prior to one but simultaneous with or a consequence of the other.

One can understand that touching fire causes pain even if the one in question is language less. Meaning is attributed within the experience. The creature draws a correlation between it's behaviour and what happened immediately afterwards, The creature learned something, and by doing so, attributed meaning to the act and the fire. The fire became meaningful and/or significant to the creature after the connection was made between touching it and the pain that ensued. The creature attributed/recognized causality.

So, not all meaning involves reference, and not all understanding is of something that is already meaningful. — creativesoul

I'd say that the meaning they're performing re fire and pain includes a reference to pain. But I don't think of reference as necessarily linguistic in the sense of having to utter a word.

Mentioned this thread here.

Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.”

What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual language structures? — Mww

I'm not familiar with Fodor. I would readily agree that some mental acts are structured by language. I would also say that some mental acts are prior to language acquisition, and therefore cannot be language structures. Language acquisition itself is existentially dependent upon mental acts, so...

I’m of the mind that mental acts are images, and meaning is prior to language, insofar as meaning is merely a judgement on conceptual referents presented to it by reason.

In order for that to be true, judgment on conceptual referents, and reason would all need to exist prior to language. I may agree with a nuanced version of this line of thinking, but it would require redefining judgment and reason. On my view, neither is even possible prior to language.

Some mental acts are images. Not all. Blind people think.

On the other hand, if Fodor is right, meaning won’t be prior to language, at least of the mental variety. Then we’d have to determine if the mental variety is different than the overall objective variety, such that meaning could still be prior to one but simultaneous with or a consequence of the other. — Mww

May I suggest dispensing with the very idea of objective meaning? The subjective/objective dichotomy is utterly incapable of being used to take proper account of that which is both.

I'd say that the meaning they're performing re fire and pain includes a reference to pain. But I don't think of reference as necessarily linguistic in the sense of having to utter a word. — Terrapin Station

I can't make much sense of the idea of performing meaning.

Does the burn victim need an audience?

Performing = something an individual does. It's a process they have to engage in on a particular occasion.