Arbitrary stuff invariably allows for lots of mischief; which, again, I am not necessarily up in arms against, because from my lazy chair, I enjoy letting the laws of nature run their course. — alcontali
It's about how math emerged onto the world stage solely by virtue of our attribution of specific non-negotiable meaning to certain marks and quantities and how that evolved into also talking about non physical things with meaningful marks...
— creativesoul
Quantities, i.e. numbers, are not even needed for inadvertently dragging in an entire bureaucracy of verifiable formalisms, rules and regulations: — alcontali
Math is meaningful. — creativesoul
Math is meaningful.
— creativesoul
I guess that you say that because you attach a value judgement to the terms "meaningful" ("good") and "meaningless" ("bad").
I don't.
Furthermore, fake morality often throws a spanner in the works. If you cannot view the technical term "meaningless" as morally neutral, then you will invariably look for meaning/semantics, where there isn't any, especially by design. — alcontali
Well played. :clap:
So, let me just ask you this (as I am having trouble with it): does a game with rules, such as basketball, have meaning outside of its meaningful value in personal taste/judgment to so many people? Because I think alcontali might say that pure mathematics is a lot like basketball in that it is something like a game with rules. — Noah Te Stroete
Suppose I said 'football is not about anything'....or 'doing philosophy is not about anything' ... Neither statement is generally open to a truth value ... — fresco
No, I asked what human-caused scribbles and sounds mean, among many other questions. You aren't answering the questions.You ask 'what words are about'. — fresco
:brow: Huh-wha? They are about agreements about action decisions?They are about 'ephemeral agreement about action decisions' whether in internal or extenal dialogue. They are not about 'things' except insofar that 'things' are contextual focusings of attention towards which action might be directed. 'Things' are actively 'thinged' by thingers ! — fresco
If 'aboutness' is vacuous, how is it that you've used it twice in one sentence to describe what words are about? I asked you how 'aboutness' could be vacuous, but you again ignored the question and then contradict your own statement by using the word. :confused:But your lay term 'aboutness' is vacuous, because unless you are a naive realist you have no 'bedrock'. My 'cordination of coordination' rests on the bedrock of 'action decisions' involved in physical, psychological and social 'prediction and control'. — fresco
I never said 'meaning' is about independently existing 'things'. I said 'meaning' is the relationship between causes and their effects. You aren't paying attention.So to think 'meaning' is about independently existing 'things' is to assume a 'bedrock' which is in essence 'quicksand', because it fails to take into account the subtle dynamics of linguistic interactions which constantly shift or negotiate the focal boundaries of 'thinghood'. — fresco
What are humans if not things? Another contradictionSo the 'direct answer' to your question has been given. 'Words' are behavioral markers in the process of organising actions to fulfil human needs. They could be considered to be 'the currency of thought', and like monetary currency their 'value' can change according to context. — fresco
Another misinterpretation of my statements. I have never said that words ultimately define words. Words are just types of visual and auditory cues. We try to get at the cause of the experiences we have, whether it be a car horn, a knock at the door, words being spoken, the sting of an ant, a hand waving, scribbles on paper, steam rising from water, smell of smoke, upset stomach, etc. By getting at the cause, we get at the meaning of the sensory impression.So, from that pov, which is supported by my references, any failure to take this on board constitues an incestuous 'language game' involving futile demands for words to define words...futile because its like asking 'how many dollars is a dollar worth' ?
Q: What does a dollar/word mean ? A: What action you can perform with it.
BTW Your 'scribbles' are equivalent to banknotes/coins/poker chips, etc. — fresco
It has been suggested that the characterization of Ildefonso as entirely "languageless" may be an oversimplification. In the same review, Padden speculates that "Schaller may have been teaching language to Ildefonso, but more accurately, she was teaching him how to map a new set of symbols on a most likely already existent framework of symbolic competence."
I did.I see ! So 'cause' = 'meaning'...good luck with that one!
Let me know if you follow up my references. — fresco
It seems that other prominent philosophers don't even think that Derrida's Deconstruction theory is legitimate philosophy.There have been problems defining deconstruction. Derrida claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is,[26]:4 and that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it.
In the early 1970s, Searle had a brief exchange with Jacques Derrida regarding speech-act theory. The exchange was characterized by a degree of mutual hostility between the philosophers, each of whom accused the other of having misunderstood his basic points.[25]:29[citation needed] Searle was particularly hostile to Derrida's deconstructionist framework and much later refused to let his response to Derrida be printed along with Derrida's papers in the 1988 collection Limited Inc. Searle did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy, or even intelligible writing, and argued that he did not want to legitimize the deconstructionist point of view by paying any attention to it. Consequently, some critics[48] have considered the exchange to be a series of elaborate misunderstandings rather than a debate, while others[49] have seen either Derrida or Searle gaining the upper hand. The level of hostility can be seen from Searle's statement that "It would be a mistake to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions", to which Derrida replied that that sentence was "the only sentence of the 'reply' to which I can subscribe".[50] Commentators have frequently interpreted the exchange as a prominent example of a confrontation between analytic and Continental philosophies. — Wikipedia
Like I said, how can we learn language (how to map a new set of symbols) if we don't already think, or know how symbolism works - if there isn't already an aboutness to our experiences? Sure, Idelfonso could already understand symbolism in that some feeling is an indicator of some state of his body, or some state of the world. How do you expect some person to learn language if they don't already represent things in their mind?NB. In terms of your flair for combative philosophy you might appreciate this critique of the Schaller study.
It has been suggested that the characterization of Ildefonso as entirely "languageless" may be an oversimplification. In the same review, Padden speculates that "Schaller may have been teaching language to Ildefonso, but more accurately, she was teaching him how to map a new set of symbols on a most likely already existent framework of symbolic competence." — Wikipedia
Yes. Opinions on Derrida tend to polarize due to his iconoclasm.
Have a go with Maturana. He doesn't do 'mind' or 'thinking'...only behavior. — fresco
You seem to be using the word "meaning" in at least three different senses:
Meaning as the definition of a word
Meaning as the interpretation of a set of ideas
Meaning as significance.
They all seem to get mashed up together. I think things would have been clearer if you had defined your term better at the beginning. — T Clark
I certainly think he was correct with respect his critique of the law of the excluded middle (as evidenced, in my mind, by the concept of complementarity in quantum physics). — fresco
You seem to be using the word "meaning" in at least three different senses:
Meaning as the definition of a word
Meaning as the interpretation of a set of ideas
Meaning as significance.
They all seem to get mashed up together. I think things would have been clearer if you had defined your term better at the beginning.
— T Clark
Bingo. — S
I understand (I think) what each of you thinks meaning is. What I don’t understand is how you both can’t be right at the same time. I am dumb. We all can agree on that! — Noah Te Stroete
Opinions on Derrida tend to polarize due to his iconoclasm.
Have a go with Maturana. He doesn't do 'mind' or 'thinking'...only behavior. — fresco
You've merely repeated (surprise, surprise) your heavily criticised prior position, from a prior discussion, which logically implies a form of idealism.
And there are counterexamples to this, but of course you won't acknowledge them whilst you cling to your position. And you cling to your position like Tara Reid clings to alcohol and fame. — 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.