I was thinking in terms of how language rules could be established, and for that communication seems necessary. — Echarmion
I'm not a realist on physical law, but we weren't talking about physical laws anyway. We were talking about rules that people construct... — Terrapin Station
There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. — S
I'm asking you a direct question. Simple.
Do you have an answer? — creativesoul
The last speaker of a native tongue carries the meaning of use along with them at the moment of death. — creativesoul
The empirical evidence there is of us doing something. There's zero evidence of meaning obtaining outside of that.
We obviously do not think of the marks as being meaningless. The question is whether they have meaning outside of that. There's no evidence that they do. — Terrapin Station
You guys obviously need to scratch up on your Wittgenstein — S
I don't agree with Wittgenstein, though. (And in my opinion the "Wittgenstein cult" is one of the worst things to happen to philosophy in the last 100 years.) I was detailing that in the PI thread. I'm behind in that thread and need to catchy back up, but I started detailing disagreements with him. — Terrapin Station
I'm asking you a direct question...
Do you have an answer?
— creativesoul
My original answer was good enough. — S
I find that none of those notions can take proper account of meaning.
— creativesoul
Real helpful. It's ontology or nothing. If you refuse to do ontology, then you're just not cooperating. You must think on that level, and begin to categorise in that way. — S
You didn't do as I asked, which was to give a proper answer, where that means giving a fully justified answer instead of just asserting a necessary dependence. — S
There is an ancient text found. No one speaks the language. Some jerkoff or another says that they've deciphered the text. How can anyone know if it is translated correctly? — creativesoul
The question directly addresses the situation you put forth. Why don't you try to deal with issues that your position has? — creativesoul
Look, I'm not saying that you had bad intent, but I really think that you have a tendency to go about involving yourself in a discussion in the wrong way. — S
Pointing out that the methodology(the terminological framework) you're insisting on, is inherently inadequate for the task is the wrong way to involve myself in the discussion?
How else to I tell you that the problems are the inherently inadequate conceptions, language use, and/or the terminological frameworks you're adopting and working from?
Flies and bottles... — creativesoul
Step one is for you to go back and revisit the post where I did quote you and offered relevant answers...
page 6 maybe? — creativesoul
There is only one creature in existence. A creature draws a correlation between this and that: "In this language, this means that". He writes it down. The creature dies a minute later. Why would the linguistic meaning he set die with him? Why wouldn't this mean that in the language?. — S
One person is insufficient for language. The entire scenario is ill conceived.
Linguistic meaning is existentially dependent upon language users. The meaning does not consist of language users. The meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. The meaning lives or dies along with the users. If someone or other later finds a text, it is possible for them to decipher some of the meaning. That would require that an interpreter draw the same correlations between the marks and whatever else those marks were correlated with by the original actual users of that language... — creativesoul
All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.
Let's start there.
Do you disagree?
If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes. — creativesoul
All meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things.
Let's start there.
Do you disagree?
If so, offer me one example to the contrary. That's all it takes.
— creativesoul
It seems a little unclear. I would change it to: all linguistic meaning consists of correlations that have been drawn between different things. That way it makes it clear that only linguistic meaning is being talked about, and it makes it clear that only a past act is required for there to be linguistic meaning. There's a linguistic meaning if it was set, and if nothing of relevance has changed. — 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.