I have my own theory about meaning. I say that it is rule-based and objective. With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication. "Let's use the symbol 'dog' to mean those furry things with four legs that bark". Once the meaning in the language has been set, then that's that. That's what it means. The rule applies, unless and until there's a reason that it stops applying. One such reason could be if the rule was changed, which I think is easier to grasp on a smaller scale: a created language of just two people, for instance. The two people could have used English for the template of their language, but then later on decided that "dog" no longer means those furry things with four legs that bark, but instead means what the word "sink" means in English: a fixed basin with a water supply and outflow pipe. In their language, it makes sense to say, "Put your dinner plate in the dog for now, and I'll wash it up shortly".
I am not an idealist, or a subjectivist here, although I acknowledge some related things like empiricism and subjectivity where they seem appropriate. But I probably won't find these positions agreeable enough to reach the same conclusions, so these positions probably won't help much.
I am not a physicalist, although I can acknowledge much that is physical. But the mindset of assuming that there must be a physical explanation for everything seems problematic to me. I've encountered what strike me as category errors here.
I am not a dualist, although perhaps I could become one. I've heard there's some sort of problem of interaction here, and it seems to have hung around since Descartes. Or is there a solution I'm not aware of?
I am perhaps best described as a sceptic here.
"Let's use the symbol 'dog' to mean those furry things with four legs that bark". Once the meaning in the language has been set, then that's that. That's what it means.
This part is the most important bit to start thinking about. Imagine that we had to write an account covering in detail exactly how this part works. It must work some way, or, well, it wouldn't work.
So leading up to it, as a bit of a caricatured/oversimplified description, since there's no dispute about this part, we've got Joe and Betty and Pete and Jane and so on all suggesting words for the language, just what the words are going to refer to in terms of other words, in terms of pointing at things and so on (this aspect we might have to get back to and detail a bit with respect to meaning, but we'll just skim over that for the moment), and they reach agreements about all of this and so on. One of the terms they reach an agreement on is "dog."
Then along comes Frank, say. Maybe he's Joe and Betty's kid, maybe he's an immigrant--whatever. He's new to our milieu. So Frank needs to learn the language. Let's first detail how he learns "dog"/what "dog" means. (And I'll have some questions as we detail this, but let's just start with how the process proceeds.) — Terrapin Station
He learns the rule, which he could do through witnessing how the word is used in conversation, or by looking up the definition in a dictionary of the language. — S
Okay, and one question here (this is kind of the easiest question, so I'll start with it), is that the way the word is used in conversation or the definition given in a dictionary isn't just the way the word is used in those particular conversations or the way it's defined in that particular dictionary (so that it's a fact that it was used that way in the conversation in question or that it was defined that way in the dictionary in question), but somehow it becomes the right/correct meaning, correct? — Terrapin Station
So if Frank uses or defines the term differently, then the the meaning changes on those occasions? — Terrapin Station
He can't change the language on his own, because it is not his language. It already has established rules. If he wants to create his own language, based on the original language, with his own meanings and rules, then he can do so. — S
An "apple" refers to a category of things which are different in some ways but similar in others, the word is used literally, figuratively and could be expanded and contracted to include particular differences but not others - for instance the introduction of a genetically modified orange "apple" could still called an "apple". It can be used to refer to an actual apple or an image of an apple which may allow for further departure from the actual qualities of an apple such as being different in size or proportions to what is found in the real world yet it's still called an apple.
Languages as they do not offer rules which encompass the variety of interpretations for what an apple could be or even is in so far as the word is used. Expressions like "the apple of my eye" make no sense when using the definitions offered by dictionaries. The context of the usage of the word can change the meaning but again, you won't find rules for this. — Judaka
Your argument that language operates on rules which are not dependent upon intelligent species doesn't hold up to scrutiny in that there are no rules as you suggest. You mean it figuratively at best but there's no need for such ambiguity provided you acknowledge the parameters that hold all of these interpretations and contexts for the word that do exist or could exist in the future together. As the emergence of these interpretations and contexts did not constitute a departure from the English language but rather added to it in a way which did not change the language fundamentally. — Judaka
This idea of a "fundamental English" which serves as parameters for interpretations that don't break the rules is useful to you. You don't have to define "dog" because provided there are rules for establishing what a "dog" is and correcting unworkable deviations from those definitions then you have an English which accommodates figurative use, metaphorical use, alternative interpretations (particularly with regards to specificity) and so on.
I think the notion that English incorporates a range of definitions but also excludes definitions based on rules is a better argument than your current one which is relying on rules which you can't actually articulate but maybe you don't see the merit.
Doesn't matter to me because I think both arguments are wrong (as arguments for objective meaning), my version just seems less wrong in a technical sense. — Judaka
So once a definition is set forth, it can't be changed, at least not by just one person. How does that work? — Terrapin Station
Are we saying something different than, "The people who agree to think of x in y way will probably not change their mind just because one person does something different"? — Terrapin Station
You able to "create rules" but you are unable to articulate the rules that currently exist or point anyone towards where they are written. — Judaka
In other words, is that equivalent to what you're saying? — Terrapin Station
You're able to "create rules" but you are unable to articulate the rules that currently exist or point anyone towards where they are written. It is poor for someone to suggest there are rules which lead to objective meaning but then they are not able to articulate what rules they're talking about. I struggled to understand how someone can think that's a reasonable position, the argument is incomplete. So I gave some thought to making your argument comprehensible. — Judaka
Isn't he just saying that he considers definitions, grammar stipulations, etc. rules ? Those are written in dictionaries, grammar texts, etc. — Terrapin Station
No, he is saying that the rules of language can be understood without the use of interpretation. — Judaka
He argues that language can have rules which result in that language functioning using those rules to generate objective meaning (i.e meaning which doesn't have to be interpreted). — Judaka
I will for the sake of curiosity, humour you and ask you to tell me where I am wrong? I think I can give quotes from you to substantiate my recounting of your argumentation. — Judaka
Language makes no sense whatsoever without rules. Rules are fundamental. — S
Okay, so how does what the group of people do, re their agreed-upon definition, their usage, etc. become the meaning contra what Frank might do later? — Terrapin Station
That whole quote, more or less. You say that I'm unable to articulate the rules when I am. You say that that I'm unable to point towards where they're written when I am in some cases, although that's not even necessary anyway. — S
Very odd question. I would advise them to learn the language in the usual ways, and use the usual resources, such as a dictionary or a language learning app. We've all learnt a language as children through to adulthood, and that entails learning language rules. A great deal of it is automatic for us, of course. We learnt the rules long ago. You understand what I'm saying without any need to learn the rules. — S
I've already addressed this. Once again, some degree of ambiguity is not sufficient to refute my argument. In these cases, the speaker presumably knows what he meant to a higher degree of accuracy. The speaker would be the rule setter. So the rule would be that this particular word in the speakers statement has this particular meaning. Once the rule is set, the speaker is no longer required. Why would it be otherwise? This is what you must account for if you intend to argue against me. I'm still waiting for a proper response to this from you. Are you going to attempt to justify your idealist premise? — S
For one, you're probably using "rule" different than I'd use it. I wouldn't use "rule" for something that's not both explicit in some manner and that doesn't have specific consequences if it's broken. — Terrapin Station
There are rules everywhere you look. There are rules for establishing the rules of the language. So long as he follows the rules, there isn't a problem. If he doesn't follow the rules, then he can't get what he wants - that is, if he wants to change the language. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.