The builder and the assistant are doing something together, building something. This is cooperation. I would say that the act of building, in this instance, is something which is shared. So "cooperation" refers to a sharing, and in this case what is shared is the act of building.
Let's suppose that "meaning" refers to an act of cooperation, so it is also a type of sharing. What is the act which it is a sharing of? — Metaphysician Undercover
This is annoying for philosophers, to find that words are not really for arguing the toss, or exploring the mind, but for getting stuff done. — unenlightened
Meaning isn't use. But just about any question we might have regarding meaning can be answered by talking instead about use. And that just about is only there to cover the unknown...
Share... Like a pizza? Or like a house? Or like Brexit? Or like an investment? Or like a story? — Banno
What do you think is the relationship between meaning and rules? Are they the same thing, meaning is rules, and rules are meaning? Or, are rules a type of meaning, or is meaning a type of rule? Or is there some other relationship? — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure it is, and we do it with language, but it's secondary, and parasitic on the practical uses of language to coordinate social action. First we hunt, then we tell hunting stories, and then we theorise hunting.Isn't exploring the mind an instance of doing something? — Metaphysician Undercover
So if there is some "external" thing being 'shared' then why isn't it preserved through translation. — Isaac
My suspicion is that there is an implication here that might be dangerous for a certain philosophical convention - that ethics cannot be discussed? — unenlightened
So contra Banno above, I want to say that meaning is being able to play the game, or in this case, stopping playing the game when the whistle blows, and restarting when the whistle blows again. Exactly as one says that a dog understands 'sit' just in case it sits when the trainer says 'sit'. We don't require that the beast can explain itself. I suppose I would say something like that meaning is how the rules play out in the form of life. — unenlightened
Sure it is, and we do it with language, but it's secondary, and parasitic on the practical uses of language to coordinate social action. First we hunt, then we tell hunting stories, and then we theorise hunting. — unenlightened
Wouldn't this put meaning into the minds of the individuals then, and not something shared? The rules are shared, but the meaning of the rules is what is in the individual's mind. So if one person misunderstood what the whistle is supposed to mean, that person might keep playing, having assigned a different meaning to the whistle. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are a variety of different language-games, as Wittgenstein notes at §23 of PI, but one thing that may be shared between language users across at least some of those language-games is behaviours or actions. The obvious example is giving and acting upon orders or requests, where the speaker uses (or behaves with) language to elicit the desired behaviours of the hearer(s). In this case, knowing the meaning of the speaker's words is knowing how to behave/act in response.
I doubt that this "answer" fits all uses of language, as there is probably more than one answer depending on the use. — Luke
One thing that's important to clarify re "shared meaning" is whether someone is positing (1) one "thing" that's multiply present--a la the traditional concept of universals, where there's a solitary universal that somehow obtains in multiple things, (2) multiple "things" that are somehow the same (somehow identical despite not being numerically identical), or simply (3) something that can be observed by multiple people--sharing in the "show and tell" sense.
Note that neither (1) nor (2) can be held by nominalists, although (2) is maybe not too far removed from trope nominalism if we don't insist on identity. — Terrapin Station
So it seems safe enough to say that shared meaning requires a plurality of language users. — creativesoul
What is it, and what does it take? — creativesoul
Rwy'n rhannu rhai geiriau gyda chi, ond oni bai eich bod eisoes yn gyfarwydd â'r Gymraeg, ni fyddwch yn deall yr hyn sy'n cael ei ddweud.
As I'm sure you all agree. But perhaps you do not know that you agree? — unenlightened
They might be, or they might only be as different as two slices of a shared pizza. Some philosophers claim that a meal is only shared if the mouths connect to the same stomach, but I think they are mistaken. — unenlightened
Each one is contradictory in its own right. — Metaphysician Undercover
Meaning isn't a thing. So it's not shared.
— Banno
Well thanks for sharing that opinion, but why can we only share things? People talk about shared responsibility; is communion not shared? I think the thought police are over-stepping their remit here. — unenlightened
Working on pithy.
Meaning is shared only insofar as the context demands. Even words that seemed to create shared meaning in one context may, when used in a different context, demonstrate that the meaning was never shared to begin with.
Yelling "slab" may get a house built, but it could just be that in the context of a construction site, it was sufficient for the yeller to mean "hand me what is next on the pile" and the receiver to have understood the word to mean "hand me the hard rock thing cut into a manageable shape."
I suck at pithy. — xzJoel
We read the same thread, we speak the same language; why do you want to have a problem with "share", suddenly? — unenlightened
...but here, how does shared meaning differ from meaning? A meaning that has not been shared... a meaning that cannot be shared?...shared meaning requires a plurality of language users. — creativesoul
So, what is it that is being shared between language users? To answer "meaning" is not at all helpful nor informative. — creativesoul
One thing that's important to clarify re "shared meaning" is whether someone is positing (1) one "thing" that's multiply present--a la the traditional concept of universals, where there's a solitary universal that somehow obtains in multiple things, (2) multiple "things" that are somehow the same (somehow identical despite not being numerically identical), or simply (3) something that can be observed by multiple people--sharing in the "show and tell" sense. — Terrapin Station
With regard to shared (intersubjective) meaning, whether communicated verbally, or non-verbally:
1) Communication requires message vocabulary and syntax which is understood by both message source and destination.
2) Semantic message encoding and decoding requires knowledge of the code used, corresponding mental representations, and the communication context.
3) A semantic message may be encoded differently and have the same meaning in each code.
In addition to intersubjective (social group) meaning, there is also: universal (innate or inherent), subjective (personal), and unknown meaning. — Galuchat
...what is it that is being shared between language users? — creativesoul
Understanding. — Mww
"What is it and what do you need?
This, of course, requires value. In general, we talk about language users when discussing common concepts. It is safe to say that many language users need general purposes.
If so, what is common to language users? The answer to "meaning" is usually not useful.
What do you say;"
___
The 'purified' version of the question. English - >Korean - >Russian - >Greek - >Finnish - >English.
I think it makes just as little sense as the original. — Isaac
It’s what facilitates cooperation within social groups. It primarily requires shared values and goals. — praxis
I think this has a lot to do with the bidirectional nature of shared speech. I utter some words, and I intend for them to carry a particular meaning. You hear my words, and you discern from them a meaning. But the meaning I intend and the meaning you receive might be two quite different things. I think this is the core of the sharing question. — Pattern-chaser
“Meaning” is what words, thoughts, representations, etc. refer to. My two cents. — Noah Te Stroete
Meaning is shared only insofar as the context demands. Even words that seemed to create shared meaning in one context may, when used in a different context, demonstrate that the meaning was never shared to begin with.
Yelling "slab" may get a house built, but it could just be that in the context of a construction site, it was sufficient for the yeller to mean "hand me what is next on the pile" and the receiver to have understood the word to mean "hand me the hard rock thing cut into a manageable shape." — xzJoel
The term "tree" does not refer to meaning. — creativesoul
We discover the meaning by seeing the use they are put to, which is to coordinate action. We see that the meaning is shared by observing that the assistant presents and the builder is satisfied with what is presented in harmony with the word use. If there was a misunderstanding, or a mis hearing, one would see the disharmony that resulted as slab was thrown back at the assistant , along with some remonstration. — unenlightened
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.