More broadly, I've wondered in the past if there are actual aspects of fundamental reality that are only grasped by speakers of specific languages through words and expressions in their respective languages... — Noble Dust
Being certain is easy. Any fool can be certain. Demonstrating that your notion of French grey doesn't change - that'd be interesting. — Banno
What about color spectrum gradient? Let's get off the religiousic Witty high horse for a minute and realize that color exists on a gradient more fine than language does. Who's going to argue for one exact color gradient that the phrase "French Grey" defines? Come on now boys. — Noble Dust
its meaning is unambiguous in the given context and situation. — Cidat
Something I learned many moons ago in my psychology of language class. From Wikipedia:
The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language affects its speakers' worldview or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language. — T Clark
I love German. I think being able to speak it a little opens me up to concepts and ways of thinking. On the other hand, I think that's the weak version of the Whorf hypothesis, i.e. some ideas are easier to express and come more naturally in one language vs. another, but it's possible to translate. Or, you can just steal the word. — T Clark
ay, there's the rub:
The meaning is the use. — Banno
Meaning isn't use. That one can assign different meanings to a word doesn't, in any way, imply that all there is to words is how we use them. — TheMadFool
(But it seems that the actual question that such inquiries are trying to answer is something like, What came first: use or definition?) — baker
True novums are extremely rare. Normally, we use existing language material (or, more generally: symbol material) and make something other out of it.shouldn't this be: What came first: use of pre-established symbols or the intentional creation of symbols we use? — javra
Humpty Dumpty is refering to which particular meaning of the word is the relevant one, the one that prevails.Hence, the "which is to be master" part:
I think this is a misleading dichotomy. I think the relationship between the two is mutual, they are mutually interdependent, and that we cannot meaningfully talk about one without the other, nor assume that one came first and is the condition or requirement for the other.words that create the limits of concepts with which we think or the agency to express concepts we choose to think via words.
You're looking at things from the perspective of one who is birthed into and thereby embedded within, at the very least, one language, and from this vantage I of course agree with you. I looked at the "which came first" question a bit more literally in the ontological sense. — javra
Unless you subscribe to a kind of biblical "and then God gave man language", you're always looking at matters of language as someone who is birthed into and thereby embedded within, at the very least, one language.
I assume that just like there is unbroken evolutionary continuity that spans through time to our present state, from our ancestors who lived in the sea to ape like creatures to H. sapiens, so there is unbroken evolutionary continuity of language, where at each t + 1 we use what was already there at t and make other things out of it (but which cannot rightfully be called "new"). It's not recycling, but it's also not invention.
I don't see how the "which came first" question can be asked meaningfully. — baker
No, that's not at all what "meaning is use" is. Quiet the contrary, the meaning is found in the place of the words used in the language game being played. Meaning is essentially social.
Contrast "The meaning of the word is whatever I say it is" with "The meaning of the word is the part it plays in the language game being played". — Banno
Can there be use devoid of intention? — javra
If someone else has a different "intended meaning of tree", does that prevent communication? Usually not. Meanign is not a thing in your head. — Banno
At any rate, is intention not something in your head? — javra
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.