As a memory - how else? — Harry Hindu

How do you know that you have a memory of your mother, and not some other woman that just looks like her? If you consider your memory in isolation from context (or 'use') then by itself it doesn't mean or represent anything.

Did we cherry pick my post? I mentioned the "Man with No Words" but neither of you addressed it. — Harry Hindu

I addressed it by pointing out that it has no bearing on what Wittgenstein said.

It's not necessarily a symbol. To know a banana is ripe is to see it as yellow. — Harry Hindu

But you can also see the banana as yellow without knowing that it is ripe (or even knowing that it is something edible). So just seeing the banana is yellow is not sufficient to represent it as ripe.

How do you know that you have a memory of your mother, and not some other woman that just looks like her? If you consider your memory in isolation from context (or 'use') then by itself it doesn't mean or represent anything. — Fafner

Why stop there? Nothing would stop you from continuing on to question whether or not you even have a memory of a woman or even a memory of a word and how it is used.

But you can also see the banana as yellow without knowing that it is ripe (or even knowing that it is something edible). So just seeing the banana is yellow is not sufficient to represent it as ripe. — Fafner

Exactly. That is why I mentioned that you need experience in eating yellow and black bananas.

When did W. ever address people that never learned a language? Such a case is extremely rare and strangely enough it is these extremely rare cases that teach us a lot about what we are talking about.

When did W. ever address people that never learned a language? Such a case is extremely rare and strangely enough it is these extremely rare cases that teach us a lot about what we are talking about. — Harry Hindu

I don't know if he did, but that's irrelevant, because he was only talking about the meaning of words. As as I said before, you're creating a straw-man by equivocating on the word "meaning".

Again, I'll repeat exactly what he wrote: "For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

I'd say that meaning is determined by use, and if we limit our concern to language, I'd say that meaning is determined by use as/in language, but I'd stress that that doesn't necessarily imply something communal (and I'd also stress that "determined by" is not "identical to").

Why stop there? Nothing would stop you from continuing on to question whether or not you even have a memory of a woman or even a memory of a word and how it is used. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, that's my point - your memory, or a color of something is a symbol or a representation of something else only in its use as a symbol. Something cannot acquire a symbolic meaning just by some act of magic - it can represent only as so far as it belongs to a symbolism (whatever verbal or otherwise).

Exactly. That is why I mentioned that you need experience in eating yellow and black bananas. — Harry Hindu

This isn't sufficient either. How do you connect between the color of something and your eating it?

Are you going to address the "Man with No Words"? He has memories to, but had no words to associate with them. — Harry Hindu

In my first response to you I already said that something can be a symbol without being a word, and I also said that meaning is not just "associating" words with things, so I didn't say that a verbal language is necessary for symbolizing.

I think it's worth quoting Wittgenstein once again:

50. What does it mean to say that we can attribute neither being nor non-being to elements?--One might say: if everything that we call "being" and "non-being" consists in the existence and non-existence of connexions between elements, it makes no sense to speak of an element's being (non-being); just as when everything that we call "destruction" lies in the separation of elements, it makes no sense to speak of the destruction of an element.

One would, however, like to say: existence cannot be attributed to an element, for if it did not exist, one could not even name it and so one could say nothing at all of it.--But let us consider an analogous case. There is one thing of which one can say neither that it is one metre long, nor that it is not one metre long, and that is the standard metre in Paris.--But this is, of course, not to ascribe any extraordinary property to it, but only to mark its peculiar role in the language-game of measuring with a metre-rule.--Let us imagine samples of colour being preserved in Paris like the standard metre. We define: "sepia" means the colour of the standard sepia which is there kept hermetically sealed. Then it will make no sense to say of this sample either that it is of this colour or that it is not.

We can put it like this: This sample is an instrument of the language used in ascriptions of colour. In this language-game it is not something that is represented, but is a means of representation.--And just this goes for an element in language-game (48) when we name it by uttering the word "R": this gives this object a role in our language-game; it is now a means of representation. And to say "If it did not exist, it could have no name" is to say as much and as little as: if this thing did not exist, we could not use it in our language-game.--What looks as if it had to exist, is part of the language. It is a paradigm in our language-game; something with which comparison is made. And this may be an important observation; but it is none the less an observation concerning our language-game--our method of representation.

I don't know if he did, but that's irrelevant, because he was only talking about the meaning of words. As as I said before, you're creating a straw-man by equivocating on the word "meaning". — Michael

In my first response to you I already said that something can be a symbol without being a word, and I also said that meaning is not just "associating" words with things, so I didn't say that a verbal language is necessary for symbolizing. — Fafner

LOL. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If meaning is use, then I can use the word "meaning" in a particular way, and that is what it means. What does "meaning" mean? If I use the word "meaning" to mean an association or a reference, which many people do use the word "meaning" to mean, then that is what it means.

It seems that things other than words, and how they are used, are imbued with meaning. You don't need language to know what these things mean. You simply need prior experiences with these things to know what they mean. — Harry Hindu

I agree. It seems Wittgenstein's phrase, "meaning is use" applies only to human communication using human language modified by context.

It doesn't apply to the communication of other types of signs which also have meaning, such as:
Signals
Symptoms
Indices
Icons
Fetishes
Symbols (other than words)

"Einstein originally constructed his model of the universe out of nonverbal signs, ' of visual and some of muscular type . ' As he wrote to a colleague in 1945 : 'The words or the language , as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be "voluntarily" reproduced and combined . ' Later, ' only in a secondary stage , ' after long and hard labour to transmute his nonverbal construct into ' conventional words and other signs,' was he able to communicate it to others."

Sebeok, Thomas A. (2001). Signs: An Introduction To Semiotics. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
https://monoskop.org/images/0/07/Sebeok_Thomas_Signs_An_Introduction_to_Semiocs_2nd_ed_2001.pdf

Apparently, Einstein's thoughts contained meaning which was independent of human language and any modifying context.

And if meaning were use, then why are dictionaries full of definitions rather than uses of the word? There are sentences as part of a definition, but they are examples of it's use for that particular definition. If meaning were use then why have dictionaries at all? Any way I use a word would be what it means and dictionaries would be useless.

This isn't sufficient either. How do you connect between the color of something and your eating it? — Fafner

Isn't he saying via experience? Via eating a number of bananas, you notice a correlation between the color and the ripeness.

LOL. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If meaning is use, then I can use the word "meaning" in a particular way, and that is what it means. What does "meaning" mean? If I use the word meaning to mean an association or a reference, which many people do use the word, "meaning" to mean, then that is what it means. — Harry Hindu

Words can have more than one meaning. The word "meaning" can have more than one meaning. Wittgenstein is only talking about one of these meanings, which is why he says "For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

You responding to this by saying that a banana being yellow means that it's ripe is like responding to the claim "to run is to move quickly with one's legs" by saying "but my fridge is running fine and it doesn't have any legs".

And if meaning were use, then why are dictionaries full of definitions rather than uses of the word? There are sentences as part of a definition, but they are examples of it's use for that particular definition. If meaning were use then why have dictionaries at all? Any way I use a word would be what it means. — Harry Hindu

What dictionaries do is to replace words which the speaker doesn't know their conventional use, with words that the speaker does know how to use, because if he didn't then the dictionary would be completely useless to him.

Ah, I wasn't following the discussion well enough. Yeah, if he's saying that a yellow banana "means" a particular ripeness state, in the sense of there being a correlation between the two, that would be an equivocation with the "semantics" sense of meaning.

And I didn't see the dictionary comment. A dictionary reports the usage of words. I see dictionaries as more or less journalistic items, but journalistic items that sometimes contain a bit of editorializing. (Not that definitions are the same thing as meanings, by the way.)

What dictionaries do is to replace words which the speaker doesn't know their conventional use, with words that the speaker does know how to use, because if he didn't then the dictionary would be completely useless to him. — Fafner

Then how does one get to know and therefore use their first word if we need other words to tell us what another word means?

And if meaning were use, then why are dictionaries full of definitions rather than uses of the word? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly wrong though. Dictionaries just are catalogues of word use. This is why dictionaries constantly introduce new words, and indeed, offer multiple definitions of words in some cases. They track how words are used. 'Definitions' in dictionaries track word use, not the other way around.

Then how does one get to know and therefore use their first word if we need other words to tell us what another word means? — Harry Hindu

We don't learn how to speak by reading a dictionary. We learn by observing how others use words, by repeating them in the right situations, and by integrating this as a habit.

This is exactly wrong though. Dictionaries just are catalogues of word use. This is why dictionaries constantly introduce new words, and indeed, offer multiple definitions of words in some cases (not to mention drop words in some cases). They track how words are used. 'Definitions' in dictionaries track word use, not the other way around. — StreetlightX

But there aren't an infinite number of definitions. There are a limited amount. Again, if meaning is use, then I can use any word, or any scribble for that matter, to mean anything I want. Dictionaries become irrelevant. By arguing that dictionaries define specific ways of using words, is to say that words have specific meanings and can only be used in these particular ways and not in others.

Again, if meaning is use, then I can use any word, or any scribble for that matter, to mean anything I want — Harry Hindu

Yes, you can. You may not be very comprehensible to others, but in principle, this is exactly the case.

Then how does one get to know and therefore use their first word if we need other words to tell us what another word means? — Harry Hindu

But we don't always need words to tell us what another word means. when a child learns his first language, he is given demonstrative explanations for words - he is shown their use.

But that is only half the battle. What reason would you need words to mean anything? What reason would you use words at all if not to communicate their meaning as understood in the dictionary?

I don't see the relevance of the question. The reason people use words has nothing to do with how words come to mean.

I don't see the relevance of the question. The reason people use words has nothing to do with how words come to mean. — StreetlightX

If the reason people use words has nothing to do with how the words come to mean, then meaning isn't use.

That doesn't follow.

Again, if meaning is use, then I can use any word, or any scribble for that matter, to mean anything I want. — Harry Hindu

And indeed you can do that. Who would be stopping you?

Dictionaries report consensus, popular, influential, historically important etc. usages.