Once a language has only one speaker, it has become effectively private and thus useless for communication. It only becomes meaningful again when someone else learns it, and likewise the lost ancient writing has only the potential for meaning until it is deciphered. — unenlightened

So, can I ask what timescale you apply to this approach? I mean, there's a chance (a slim one I admit) that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is not currently being used in any language game, not right now. So has it temporarily lost its meaning until it is used again? I presume that's not what you're saying.

If it's something more like "there are people who could successfully use the word in some language game, then it has a meaning, then the question I'd ask is - how much effort are you allowing this 'could' to take? Afterall, people 'could' successfully use parts of an ancient language in a language game, they just have to decipher them first.

So, can I ask what timescale you apply to this approach? — Isaac

No you bloody well can't! As it happens, there are plenty of people who well understand that position of being against the disestablishment of the church of England as the official denomination of our great and glorious nation. Or something like that. However, half an hour ago I came across the word "Tartuffery". And when I looked it up, I was referred back to the very passage from whence I had come. Further research led me to a satirical play by Moliere. I'm am simply not prepared to tolerate Nietzsche, a German, making use of a French satire of all obscurities, in one of his usual tirades against every other thinker in the world. It shall not pass into the English language!

No, actually I don't make the rules and I don't make the timescale; I simply observe that one can have no use for whereof one has no understanding. Nevertheless, I shall regard anyone who bandies "Tartuffery" about as a pathetic poseur until the play has been revived and adapted for television.

Nevertheless, I shall regard anyone who bandies "Tartuffery" about as a pathetic poseur until the play has be revived and adapted for television. — unenlightened

Well then I think I have my answer as to the question of the amount of effort you are prepared to accept within your use of the word 'could'. Up to, but just short of, the staging of a television adaptation of a 17th century play. I don't see any problem with that being the standard measure, so long as we're clear.

so long as we're clear. — Isaac

But are we clear? Specifically, are we clear about what it means to be clear?

This is a game we can play forever, to pick on a word, and make it the crucial piece in the game. We are only finished when we stop, and there is no standard measure unless we invent one for our own convenience. And since I do not find it convenient, I refuse to accept your suggestion that my rhetorical flourishes be the measure of anything. You may think you have your answer, but I think I have refused to answer, and I think those two together mean we are not clear.

But are we clear? Specifically, are we clear about what it means to be clear?

This is a game we can play forever, to pick on a word, and make it the crucial piece in the game. We are only finished when we stop — unenlightened

Well, yes, obviously. Am I supposed to guess in advance when you are clear enough to stop. You posted on a philosophy forum, it's not unreasonable to expect that you might be open to discussion.

there is no standard measure unless we invent one for our own convenience. — unenlightened

Absolutely. Again, you seem to be suggesting that such invention is done and dusted, rather than the very thing we are discussing, but this is a philosophy discussion site, is that not the exact place for talking about such measures and their convenience to us?

And since I do not find it convenient, I refuse to accept your suggestion that my rhetorical flourishes be the measure of anything. You may think you have your answer, but I think I have refused to answer, and I think those two together mean we are not clear. — unenlightened

Again we are agreed. You have indeed refused to answer and evidently do not find it convenient at all to use any such a measure, I therefore do not have my answer.

But despite my rhetorical style (in asking you a direct question) this is a discussion forum, not a 'find out about unenlightened's personal conveniences' forum, so whilst the above is self-evidently true, it's not really worth writing publicly unless you want to actually discuss it.

so whilst the above is self-evidently true, it's not really worth writing publicly unless you want to actually discuss it. — Isaac

Ah, then we are clear, have reached an understanding, and nothing more need be said. Oh Happy Day! :)

Anyway, from what I can see of your response I don’t see any clear differentiation between “use” and “meaning”. You can be perched on a tree-stump and I may say “Get out of my chair!” and be perfectly understood. — I like sushi

I think there is a problem with "meaning" is "use". "Use" does not seem to capture all of what meaning is. When someone is sitting on the stump, and you say to them "get out of my chair", it may in some cases serve the purpose of getting the person off the stump. But there is many other phrases which could have the same effect, and we can't really say that if each of them would get the person off the stump, it has the same meaning. Furthermore, there are nuances in the way that we say things. If you said that to me, I'd ask what the hell are you talking about, why is that stump your chair? Perhaps you'd do better to throw in the word "please". I say to my dog "want to go out?", and she runs for the door. The phrase serves the purpose, but I could have taught my dog to do that with any phrase. Doesn't "use" miss something, as a description of what meaning is?

You make an implicit connection there between dog and man, as if they do or even could have the same way of experiencing meaning. Dogs do not understand significations. I doubt they conceptualise their reality in the way we do. They react to tone of voice, not the words themselves. They learn that 'sit' means move my body this way, but it drilled into them through repetition and the promise of treats. It is an auditory stimuli they respond to. They are reacting to stimuli but not forming meaning in the nuanced way of the anthropocene. It is their own animalistic way of making meaning. But in that sense, taken to the extreme, the flower finds meaning in the event of photosynthesis. Meaning as an interpretive reaction to an encounter with other. When the ameoba is prodded by a stick there is a kind of proto-meaning. It reacts to touch but there is no thought process there. I would say the dog is somewhere on this spectrum and man is the apex. Man has evolved beyond sensory reactions, in that, a gap has emerged between stimuli and reaction that allows for, and is in fact, thought.

If you are an expert in animal psychology, then please ignore the following, otherwise...

We're very much stepping outside of the bounds of philosophy as soon as we start making claims about what animals are and are not thinking from the comfort of our armchairs. Basically all of your statements require empirical evidence, in most cases they are perfectly amenable to obtaining it, and in many cases I suspect experts in the field already have done so. Perhaps we should reserve judgement until we quote, or hear from one.

... Unless you are one, in which case, thanks for the info.

You're not one of those people who needs empirical evidence before he can get out bed in the morning? I'm not gonna get into the empirical evidence game, even though I think there is a lot to back up my claim (though it is really Bergsons). I just don't give the monopoly of knowldege/truth/exploration/meaning to the scientists.

'm not gonna get into the empirical evidence game — emancipate

No problem. I look forward to reading the next installment of "wot I reckon".

Shame you limit philosophy in such a way.

Shame you limit philosophy in such a way. — emancipate

Yeah, I know, but next time you need a doctor I bet you'll go see one who has empirical evidence rather than ask your mate what they reckon is wrong with you. When you want a bridge built you go to an engineer who has empirical evidence that their design works, not just some guy who reckons his design might hold up.

You already admit in everyday life that empirical evidence, where it is possible to obtain it, is better than guesswork, so why abandon it in philosophy?

Dogs are like Siri, you know they understand if they do what they're told.

"Use" does not seem to capture all of what meaning is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have some sympathy with this, though I disagree.I'll try and explain.

My mother told me that my first word was "more" (this might be more revealing than I want it to be). You can imagine the scenario, She says (habitually), "do you want some more?", waving the spoon , and at some point I copy, she recognises my meaning along the lines of 'yes please, another mouthful of dinner would be very nice'.

When one only has one word, one has to work it hard. She understands what I mean, even though I do not understand the 'true' meaning of the word I have uttered. In my little mind it could mean a spoonful, a mouthful, food, feed me, these things are not distinct. Though in the end, I have it about right as the demand 'Encore' - 'Play it again, Sam'.

And the same kind of thing goes on here at TPF. Someone asks 'is X racist?' And we have a discussion about the exact scope of the term 'racist' as if there is a truth of the matter independent of how we decide to use it. And there is such a truth, but it is only the truth of how the wider community happens to use it and how it and its root-words have been used by the community in the past. Ha, see what I did there? Root - racine - race. And so to a discussion of the tree of life, root and branch of the family/ tribe/nation, and the notion of inheritance... until we are satisfied that we have the fullness of understanding of all the possibilities of 'racism'. But there is no truth of meaning beyond the way a word is used...

Yeah, I know, but next time you need a doctor I bet you'll go see one who has empirical evidence rather than ask your mate what they reckon is wrong with you. When you want a bridge built you go to an engineer who has empirical evidence that their design works, not just some guy who reckons his design might hold up.

You already admit in everyday life that empirical evidence, where it is possible to obtain it, is better than guesswork, so why abandon it in philosophy? — Isaac

Your first paragraph references mastery over our empirical environment. Your second paragraph assumes we should shoehorn metaphysics into an empiricist lens or way of thinking, when that is merely one way for us to approach our experience of reality.

Your second paragraph assumes we should shoehorn metaphysics into an empiricist way of thinking, when that is merely one way for us to approach experience. — emancipate

You weren't referencing metaphysics, you were making statements about how the brains of animals work. The statement I objected to the introduction of was...

"They react to tone of voice, not the words themselves. They learn that 'sit' means move my body this way, but it drilled into them through repetition and the promise of treats. It is an auditory stimuli they respond to."

A cursory Google search reveals this from the Independent.

" Brain scans discover evidence that dogs process language in a similar way to humans and are only truly happy if a praising tone of voice is matched by the actual words spoken".

Took me all of 30 seconds to actually check whether what you 'reckoned' was true was actually the case.

Took you 30 seconds to find an article that matches your dogmatic opinion. How many contradicting articles did you reject first?
Here's a study that states the opposite:
(brain scans that show dogs process language in a different way to humans)

https://www.inverse.com/amp/article/49944-dog-brains-language-words&ved=2ahUKEwjekb_wvpPhAhUD1uAKHaGBBtoQFjAMegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1HRGN5PvHMq_yGqNsJZVhD&ampcf=1

Anyway, I was not referring to neuroscience. You are stuck on that empiricist train

How many contradicting articles did you reject first? — emancipate

The point was not to establish uncontested truth. The point was to show that your presumption is open to question and that the method you use to resolve that question in other areas of life, is empirical.

Anyway, I was not referring to neuroscience. — emancipate

A necessary fact to support that section of your argument was that dogs do not respond to the actual words of language the way humans do. Unless you are making a massive, unspecified, presumption of solipsism, that is not a metaphysical proposition, it is an empirical one. The response of a dog to the sound a human makes is an empirical observation. There are no metaphysical positions that I'm aware of which claim to be able to deduce the workings of animal brains in response to linguistic commands.

The only thing I will say now is that I have a bad habit of presenting things in a manner of fact way. I should qualify my posts more often to show that, yes indeed these thoughts are my speculations, explorations. I am not really making any grand claims, I am musing, experimenting. This is philosophy for me: that you are allowed to speculate. To go off piste. To be creative. There is always someone who wants to set the limits, stick to the rules.

Im not interested in tit for tat, or a game of 1upmanship.

And the same kind of thing goes on here at TPF. Someone asks 'is X racist?' And we have a discussion about the exact scope of the term 'racist' as if there is a truth of the matter independent of how we decide to use it. And there is such a truth, but it is only the truth of how the wider community happens to use it and how it and its root-words have been used by the community in the past. Ha, see what I did there? Root - racine - race. And so to a discussion of the tree of life, root and branch of the family/ tribe/nation, and the notion of inheritance... until we are satisfied that we have the fullness of understanding of all the possibilities of 'racism'. But there is no truth of meaning beyond the way a word is used... — unenlightened

I disagree with this. Meaning goes far beyond, and is much deeper than "the way a word is used". There is meaning in human relations, we have meaningful relationships. So what's this thing you are talking about called "the community"? The very existence of a community is dependent on special relations. Therefore there is no such thing as the way that words "have been used by the community" without these special relations which form "the community". The true nature of "meaning" is to be found in these meaningful relationships, not in the use of words. The use of words just facilitates meaningful relationships.

Reconsider I like sushi's example of "get out of my chair". So you're sitting on the stump, and I like sushi says "get out of my chair". If this is successful, and get's you off the stump, you'll probably go away thinking "what an arse hole". But if I like sushi brought you another chair, and explained to you why that particular stump was I like sushi's favourite spot to sit, and asked you to please consider sitting in this other chair instead, you might stick around, engage in conversation, and who knows, you may become best friends forever. That's something meaningful, and a better example of what "understanding" really is.

When we think about "meaning", at first blush it seems like we are talking about creating relationships, relationships between words and objects, or even words and ideas. But this is difficult and doesn't properly pan out, we cannot account for meaning with such relationships. So we might consider that meaning is just the way that we use words. But what are we really doing when we use words? We do not use words to get what we want from others, we use words to create and maintain special (meaningful) relationships with others. Think of the discussion above, concerning how dogs understand human beings, "understanding" and "meaningful relationship" are like two sides of the same coin. If we bring "use" into the picture, we create an imbalance.

The true nature of "meaning" is to be found in these meaningful relationships, not in the use of words. The use of words just facilitates meaningful relationships. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well sure.you're talking to Mr 'identity-is-relationship. And that explains why one can have a meaningful relationship with a dog and not with Siri.But we are considering the meaning of words here where their meaning comes from and where it goes to, and it comes from their social use, and of course social relations are prior to language.and meaningful without language, otherwise one could not learn their meaning.

But your example is infelicitous. Of course if one uses different words to act in a different manner the relationship and the meaning will be different. And an inflection can turn the same word(s) from a question into a command with very different meaning because different use, and the meaning of the inflection is conventional too.

So when one says 'meaning is use', it is saying that the scope of what is and is not a chair is set by the ways in which the word is used in the community, and not set by any property of the object, nor by the use one makes of the object, (doll's houses have chairs), nor by any property of the sound or sight of the word.

So if one says "please kind sir be so good as to vacate my inconsistency. for it is precious to me" one is liable to get a puzzled look and not the restoration of one's favourite stump, because 'inconsistency' doesn't mean anything like 'stump'. 'Chair' would work, or 'seat' or probably 'place'. and the work it does , the use, is to convey to, not to manipulate the other. If the response is 'No it's my turn on the stump', the words have still done their job.

But your example is infelicitous. Of course if one uses different words to act in a different manner the relationship and the meaning will be different. And an inflection can turn the same word(s) from a question into a command with very different meaning because different use, and the meaning of the inflection is conventional too. — unenlightened

The point though, is that to be courteous, polite, and friendly (and I believe this is what social relations are based in), cannot be classified as "use". I do not behave in a kind and considerate way because it is of some sort of use to me. To the contrary, if I took time to think about what was more useful to me, and behaved in that way, I'd be more deceitful and cheating. Sure it's true that we use words to be courteous, kind and polite, but the word use is not the attitude, it is a representation of the attitude, and the attitude is meaningful with or without the word use.

So let's be consistent. social relations are prior to word use, as you say. And social relations are meaningful. But we are talking about the meaning of word use. Isn't it true that the meaning in word use is just an extension of the meaning in social relations, taken to a new level? Just like when the person sitting in the chair becomes "The Chair", it's just an extension to the same family of meaning.

So when one says 'meaning is use', it is saying that the scope of what is and is not a chair is set by the ways in which the word is used in the community, and not set by any property of the object, nor by the use one makes of the object, (doll's houses have chairs), nor by any property of the sound or sight of the word. — unenlightened

You're only looking at one side of the coin here, and you seem to have things inverted, like looking into a mirror where the right appears on the left, you see the cause as the effect. In reality (as opposed to your representation), it is the individual instances of use, which create what you call "the ways in which the word is used in the community". Therefore, the ways in which the word is used by the community cannot dictate or determine the scope of what a chair is, because people are free to use words how they please, and this free usage causes the existence of "the ways in which the word is used in the community". That's why "the Chair" can refer to a person, because some people started using it that way, and it caught on, despite the fact that at the time when it started being used that way, it was beyond the scope of what a chair is. There really is no scope to what a chair is, we're free to use the word how we please. So, the way the word is used in the community cannot set the scope of what is and is not a chair, because it has no capacity to restrict the free usage of the individuals.

So if one says "please kind sir be so good as to vacate my inconsistency. for it is precious to me" one is liable to get a puzzled look and not the restoration of one's favourite stump, because 'inconsistency' doesn't mean anything like 'stump'. 'Chair' would work, or 'seat' or probably 'place'. and the work it does , the use, is to convey to, not to manipulate the other. If the response is 'No it's my turn on the stump', the words have still done their job. — unenlightened

I can't relieve you of your inconsistency unless you see that it is an inconsistency. Let's assume "the use, is to convey to, not to manipulate the other". Now you say that we use words to convey something. What is conveyed? The use of words, and the thing conveyed must be two distinct things if we use words to convey something. It cannot be meaning which is conveyed if meaning is the use itself. So if meaning is use itself, then we have an empty, void conveyor. There's an empty vessel, and to say that the use is to convey, is false because nothing is conveyed. We are not conveying anything, we are simply using words, and this is meaning. But if we are simply using words, we are using them for our own goals, our own intentions, and manipulating the other is inevitable.

I do not behave in a kind and considerate way because it is of some sort of use to me. To the contrary, if I took time to think about what was more useful to me, and behaved in that way, I'd be more deceitful and cheating. — Metaphysician Undercover

*sigh*. But you use words, you use gestures, you use the conventions of society to express your
politeness.

Now you say that we use words to convey something. What is conveyed? The use of words, and the thing conveyed must be two distinct things if we use words to convey something. It cannot be meaning which is conveyed if meaning is the use itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

No they mustn't. I use words to convey meaning and the meaning of the words is the use to which they are put.. Words have no use but to convey meaning, and no meaning apart from the use to which they are put. Meaningless words are useless and convey nothing.

Right, but using words is not the same as "meaning" because meaningful relations exist where words are not used. Using words is one type of "meaning". And if we divide, or separate the "meaning" of word use, from the deeper "meaning" of meaningful relations, we have cut it off from the family tree. And this gives us a false impression of what "meaning" is.

Right, but using words is not the same as "meaning" because meaningful relations exist where words are not used. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are conflating "meaning" and "meaningful". Words have meaning, they do not have meaningful. And although words can be meaningful, they do not have "meaningful relations" which "exist where words are not used".

I do not behave in a kind and considerate way because it is of some sort of use to me. To the contrary, if I took time to think about what was more useful to me, and behaved in that way, I'd be more deceitful and cheating. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your use of "use" here has a meaning of personal benefit, such as that it is useful to you. This is a different meaning to Wittgenstein's use of "use" which has a meaning of employment, such as that it has a shared use by the speakers of a community.

P.S. I have not technically returned; just not suffering the anticipated effects of treatment yet.

P.S. I have not technically returned; just not suffering the anticipated effects of treatment yet. — Luke

Luke, I appreciate your continued attempt to bring clarity, but it appears to be a fool's errand. There is always some way in which something can be misunderstood. MU seems intent on demonstrating that fact.

You are conflating "meaning" and "meaningful". Words have meaning, they do not have meaningful. And although words can be meaningful, they do not have "meaningful relations" which "exist where words are not used". — Luke

That's irrelevant, words are not the only things with meaning. There is meaning in meaningful relations, that's why they're meaningful.

Your use of "use" here has a meaning of personal benefit, such as that it is useful to you. This is a different meaning to Wittgenstein's use of "use" which has a meaning of employment, such as that it has a shared use by the speakers of a community. — Luke

I haven't yet seen Wittgenstein talk about a "shared use". I don't see how that's possible. I speak and type words, you speak and type words. My activity with my intentions, and your activity with your intentions. How could we do this as a shared activity? Anyway, as I explained to unenlightened, the existence of a community is dependent on the meaning within the relations between the people. So any meaning which might be attributed to a shared language use (whatever that might mean) is only a branch from the family of "meaning" which exists in the community, and upon which the existence of the community is dependent.

There is always some way in which something can be misunderstood. MU seems intent on demonstrating that — Fooloso4

Yes, misunderstanding is always a possibility isn't it? That's why doubt can never be ruled out. We went through this already. But since the vague, unclear sentence is conducive to misunderstanding, by what premise do you think it is that Wittgenstein says such a sentence if "perfect" (98)? Is understanding not what we are aiming for when we use words?

Is understanding not what we are aiming for when we use words? — Metaphysician Undercover

Understanding evidently comes much easier to some than to others.

There is meaning in meaningful relations, that's why they're meaningful. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wittgenstein speaks of "meaning" and "use", whereas you speak of "meaningful" and "useful". Apples and oranges.

And that's a load of crap.