A single use is enough to 'summon up a passing theory' - I think this speaks a great deal to how convention can be single-use. — StreetlightX
How could a once-used convention serve as a justification? — Banno
Might have a look for it. Something about following a rule once being the same as not following a rule... — Banno
The concept applies to words and sentences as uttered by a particular speaker on a particular occasion. But if the occasion, the speaker, and the audience are ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ (in a sense not to be further explained here), then the first meaning of an utterance will be what should be found by consulting a dictionary based on actual usage (such as Webster’s Third). Roughly speaking, first meaning comes first in the order of interpretation...
[snip]
...Because a speaker necessarily intends first meaning to be grasped by his audience, and it is grasped if communication succeeds, we lose nothing in the investigation of first meaning if we concentrate on the knowledge or ability a hearer must have if he is to interpret a speaker. What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...
[snip]
...Nothing said so far limits first meaning to language; what has been characterised is (roughly) Grice’s non-natural meaning, which applies to any sign or signal with an intended interpretation. What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?
What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?
What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...
How could a once-used convention serve as a justification?
— Banno
Justification? For what? (I think I missed a convo somewhere). — StreetlightX
First, a straight line is possible. Second, why must I even imagine a shape at all? The expression seems to get its job done without my needing to — Isaac
...the concept of triangles is no longer necessary to understand what love triangles are. — TheMadFool
A single use is enough to 'summon up a passing theory' - I think this speaks a great deal to how convention can be single-use. — StreetlightX
I've just noticed something about Davidson's notion of first meaning. — creativesoul
Only if love triangles can be existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of triangles and the latter not be necessary for the former. The meaning of love triangle is derived from the meaning of triangle. The latter is necessary for the very existence of the former, which is in turn necessary for any understanding thereof. — creativesoul
A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul
Where's triangle in your definition of love triangle? — TheMadFool
The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle. — creativesoul
I have trouble understanding Davidson notion of first meaning in the first place. This is one of the places where I wonder whether I'd have better understanding if I was more knowledgable about the philosophy of language. But I come from linguistics, and this feels like a mess. What you've been pointing out is part of it, but I don't necessarily think he's being inconsistent. I just don't get that entire part. — Dawnstorm
The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle.
— creativesoul
Love triangle = romance between three people.
No triangle. — TheMadFool
Look on the left side at the second word. There it is! Hence, my reply. — creativesoul
A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul
A love triangle (also called a romantic love triangle or a romance triangle or an eternal triangle) is usually a romantic relationship involving three or more people — Wikipedia
You've lost me here. I see it there as well. Again, on the left, "triangle" is the third term in the definition.
What are you looking at?
"Triangle" is in every one of those definitions! — creativesoul
I've nothing further to say about this... — creativesoul
...the precise mathematical concept of a triangle isn't an essential part of the juicy tale of love triangles... — TheMadFool
...the definition of words or phrases must be known before they can be used properly. — TheMadFool
Never said it was, nor would I. I direct you back to the first reply I offered you. Love triangle is a deviation of the mathematical concept. The latter is necessary for the former. The former is existentially dependent upon the latter.
Think oil and plastic. The relationship(existential dependency) is very similar to triangle and love triangle. — creativesoul
In other words, the concept of love triangles precedes the concept of triangles - our ancestor hominids probably were probably neck deep in not one but many love triangles ergo, fully in the know about love triangles before Euclid came up with a formal definition of triangles. What do you make of that? — TheMadFool
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.