I agree, but I understand the Kantian distinction as saying exactly that; the only thing that can be known (said) about noumena is that you cannot know (say) anything about them. They are even "them" only insofar as they logically correspond to phenomena. — Janus
Noumena can never relate to any empirical relation, and noumena can be talked about. — Mww
Noumena can never have anything to do with meaning, for meaning always has its object. — Mww
There are some natural occurring instances of the pattern. The mathematical Fibonacci series are intentionally produced. — Janus
If noumena can be talked about then they must have something to do with meaning. — Janus
The Greek word νοούμενoν nooúmenon is the neuter middle-passive present participle of νοεῖν noeîn "to think, to mean", which in turn originates from the word νοῦς noûs, an Attic contracted form of νόος nóos[a] "perception, understanding, mind."[3][4] A rough equivalent in English would be "something that is thought", or "the object of an act of thought".
...The Oxford Companion to Philosophy writes "Platonic Ideas and Forms are noumenon, and phenomena are things displaying themselves to the senses. [...] that noumena and the noumenal are objects of higher knowledge, truths, and values is Plato's principal legacy to philosophy."
...In Kant's account, when one employs a concept to describe or categorize noumena (the objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis of the workings of the world), one is employing a way of describing or categorizing phenomena (the observable manifestations of those objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis). Kant posited methods by which the understanding makes sense of, and thus intuits, phenomena: the concepts of the transcendental aesthetic, as well as of the transcendental analytic, logic and deduction.[8][9][10] Taken together, Kant's "categories of understanding" are the principles of the human mind which necessarily are brought to bear in attempting to understand (that is, to understand, or attempt to understand, "things in themselves"). In each case the word "transcendental" refers to the process that the human mind must exercise to understand or grasp the form of, and order among, phenomena. Kant asserts that to "transcend" a direct observation or experience is to use reason and classifications to strive to correlate with the phenomena that are observed. Humans can make sense out of phenomena in these various ways, but in doing so don't know the "things-in-themselves", the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world in their noumenal dimension - this being the negative correlate to phenomena, and that which escapes the limits of human understanding. — Wikipedia
If we cannot say what the meaning might be, it is the same as saying there isn’t one. — Mww
Moreover, however unlikely it might be, it's possible it could simply be intentionally produced undecipherable marks that are designed to mimic script, but have no meaning. More likely, though, is that it would be intentionally produced meaningful script. So, that's what should be said about it: it is likely that it is meaningful, even though we cannot say, and may never be able to say, what the meaning is. — Janus
it's possible it could simply be intentionally produced undecipherable marks that are designed to mimic script, but have no meaning — Janus
Does that mean they didn't have meaning until they were given meaning by the person who read them - and so, because of that, retain meaning forever after? — csalisbury
From a practical point of view, I got no Interest in a meaning I can’t understand. — Mww
I'd say that whatever meaning might be mis-attributed by interpreters to such a phenomenon, the phenomenon would not retain meaning ever after, merely on account of mis-attribution; because it would not be meaning inherent in the phenomenon itself. — Janus
But I think it's enough to drive a wedge, and hopefully draw something out? — csalisbury
so, intentional vs accidental meaning - Is the hallmark of an artifact that has intentional meaning that its creator intended that object to bear the meaning they've endowed it with, in order to convey it to others? — csalisbury
On the fact that it might be possible to decipher its meaning. — Janus
If there were no meaning their to be deciphered then, of course, it would be meaningless. — Janus
This is precisely what's at issue. How do you determine whether or not a text has meaning? — creativesoul
What is it that it might not be? — creativesoul
Logical possibilities are not facts. — creativesoul
This is precisely what's at issue. How do you determine whether or not a text has meaning?
— creativesoul
No, it's not what is at issue at all. Whether or not a text has meaning is not dependent on whether we can determine that it does. — Janus
If it's impossible to understand the meaning, because e.g. nothing that speaks any language exists, how are words in a dictionary different from random scratches in a rock, or the pattern of waves on the ocean? — Echarmion
For any language to work at all, we need to be able to mirror other humans to some extend. — Echarmion
But that intentionality is only visible to an intelligence with something akin to human "rationality". Without an intelligence, the patterns would still be there, but patterns are literally everywhere. — Echarmion
It might or might not be possible to decipher the text in the future even if it is impossible now. — Janus
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.