Then how is it that I was able to understand what he means (his intent)? — Harry Hindu

Again you're conflating on the word "meaning". Wittgenstein wasn't saying that a speaker's intent is his use of words (whatever that would mean). He was saying that the meaning of a word is its use.

Then W. is wrong. I'm not conflating, "meaning". If correct word-use is simply a consensus of word-use, then "meaning" is frequently used to refer to intent. It is W. that is conflating "meaning" with "use".

Then W. is wrong. I'm not conflating, "meaning". If correct words use is simply a consensus of word use, then "meaning" is frequently used to refer to intent. — Harry Hindu

But not only intent. Again, I'll repeat his actual words: "For a large class of cases--though not for all [my emphasis]--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

Wrong. The meaning of a word is what it refers to in the world. This doesn't take into account that we can make up new meanings for words. This is what poets, musicians do and people who make memes and metaphors. A new word, or a new use for an existing word, must first be heard used for a consensus of words-use to take place.

When a Harry spurge psychic dilemma because five sideways, misusing symptom communicates upside. But all that's by the bye; The point is can you understand? I you can't then call it misuse or call it ad hom, or call it a fuckwit playing games. Whatever you call it will be a misuse of words.
— unenlightened
Then a "transgender" is misusing words when a male calls themselves a "female"?

Well, you did use those words for a reason - no? If not, then why did you post it? What was your intent in using those words? What did you mean by using those words? It must have been to make some point, or simply to confuse. Whatever you call it will be a use of words because you had a goal-in-mind when using them. — Harry Hindu

I meant exactly what I said.

Then you did use words to mean something?

The meaning of a words is what it refers to in the world. — Harry Hindu

Non-referring words can have a meaning (e.g. the word "and"), and words can mean different things but refer to the same thing, e.g. "the father of Elizabeth II" and "the son of George V".

"and" refers to the addition of other things.

Then you did use words to mean something? — Harry Hindu

Yes, what do you use them for?

I'd use them to cause confusion. As a matter of fact, I copied the text so that I can use it to confuse someone. Now that two people are using those words to cause confusion, can it now be said that to use those words is to cause confusion? What is the bottom limit of the number of people who use a word certain way to say that is how that word is used in the language?

Yes, I thought it was that. But you're not very good at it; mainly you succeed only in frustrating, not confusing.

Now that two people are using those words to cause confusion, can it now be said that to use those words is to cause confusion? What is the bottom limit of the number of people who use a word certain way to say that is how that word is used in the language?

I don't know, what is the bottom limit? Did those words cause any confusion? If so, why? Was there some problem with their reference? Are you following this discussion ok?

What about an "inside" joke? Isn't a joke only an "inside" joke if a certain number of people understand it's meaning? So, there are obviously instances where words can be used that aren't part of the consensus of word-use and a limited number of people can understand the use of those words.

I don't think there is a bottom limit. That's a question YOU need to answer, not me, as you are the one proposing that to use words as opposed to misusing them requires a consensus of word-use.

You can intentionally use words to confuse, and that is to say that you intentionally used words in a way that doesn't reference anything but your intent to confuse. It is you that can't seem to follow your own arguments. You seem to agree now that you used words in some way - to accomplish a goal. If you didn't have a goal-in-mind, then how can you say that you used words, or any tool for that matter?

Well, yes, you can intentionally use words to confuse, and that is to say that you intentionally used words in a way that doesn't reference anything but your intent to confuse. — Harry Hindu

I haven't said I intended to confuse anyone, and I deny that I intended to confuse anyone. In fact I specified when there had been some discussion of what I said, that I meant exactly what I said. It was you that declared an intention to confuse.

I'd use them to cause confusion. — Harry Hindu

I don't doubt that you do intend to confuse people with your words, but I do not.

What about an "inside" joke? Isn't a joke only an "inside" joke if a certain number of people understand it's meaning? So, there are obviously instances where words can be used that aren't part of the consensus of word-use and a limited number of people can understand the use of those words. — Harry Hindu

An 'inside' seems to imply a boundary and an 'outside'. But this is normal; most people don't speak any given language, and many languages, such as Cockney rhyming slang, French Argot, and so on, are deliberately designed to exclude, and confuse 'outsiders'. So an inside joke is understood by the community it is directed at, and the consensus of people who are excluded from that community has no bearing. But how is all this relevant to our discussion?

Non-referring words can have a meaning (e.g. the word "and"), and words can mean different things but refer to the same thing, e.g. "the father of Elizabeth II" and "the son of George V". — Michael

"and" refers to the addition of other things. — Harry Hindu

Does the phrase "the addition of other things" also refer to the addition of other things?

When expressions refer to the same thing, you should be able to substitute one expression for another salva veritate, in non-intensional contexts at least. So the following are equivalent in truth-value:

(1) The father of Elizabeth II was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 until his death.

(2) The son of George V was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 until his death.

You may not know those are equivalent in truth-value, but we'll leave that aside for now.

Are (1) and (2) equivalent in truth-value to the following?

(3) The father of Elizabeth II was King of the United Kingdom the addition of other things the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 until his death.

(4) The son of George V was King of the United Kingdom the addition of other things the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 until his death.

If not, why not?

Incidentally, your grasp of the intricacies of royalty is impressive :)

WIYF.

I haven't said I intended to confuse anyone, and I deny that I intended to confuse anyone. In fact I specified when there had been some discussion of what I said, that I meant exactly what I said. It was you that declared an intention to confuse. — unenlightened

But you did confuse someone - me. If you didn't intend to confuse, then you didn't use the correct words to accomplish your goal. If your goal was to actually say something to me (which is evident by your post being a reply to me) - you failed and you failed because I didn't grasp your meaning (your intent in using those words). Saying, "I meant exactly what I said" doesn't help me at all. All that does is refer me back to those words that I don't understand. It doesn't help because you still haven't explained why you used those words (your intent).

I don't doubt that you do intend to confuse people with your words, but I do not. — unenlightened

But you have confused people with words.
1st you say that meaning is use. Then you say that use is the common use of the words and that if you use words in an uncommon way, then that is misuse. You then go about arranging words in a post that isn't the common arrangement of those words and say that you "meant what you said." If you misused words then you didn't mean anything except what your intention was in posting it. So instead of contradicting yourself again by telling me you meant what you said, try telling me why you made that post. What was your intent? What was it that you wanted me to think or do after reading it?

An 'inside' seems to imply a boundary and an 'outside'. But this is normal; most people don't speak any given language, and many languages, such as Cockney rhyming slang, French Argot, and so on, are deliberately designed to exclude, and confuse 'outsiders'. So an inside joke is understood by the community it is directed at, and the consensus of people who are excluded from that community has no bearing. But how is all this relevant to our discussion? — unenlightened

If you want to argue that correct word-use is a consensus of word-use, then how is it that Chinese (the most common language spoken) isn't the correct way to use words? If your argument is that any small group can use any symbol to refer to anything, and it actually be the correct word-use, then there can be no consensus of word use. It only takes two to agree on the symbols and what they refer to. To say that there is a consensus of word-use is to say that a particular group uses those words in that way to refer to some thing. Which groups are you talking about? If you are talking about all humans, then Chinese would be the most common way to use words. If you are talking about the United States, then all the non-English speakers are misusing words. This is absurd, so obviously correct word-use cannot be a consensus of word-use.

In the case of your "confusing" post, how is it that the one you were speaking to didn't understand, where it seemed that others the words weren't directed at did understand. So, if you "use" words where the person you were speaking to didn't understand, but others did, did you really use words correctly? The person you intended to say something meaningful to didn't get the meaning. So how can you say that you used words correctly?

Does the phrase "the addition of other things" also refer to the addition of other things?

When expressions refer to the same thing, you should be able to substitute one expression for another salva veritate, in non-intensional contexts at least. So the following are equivalent in truth-value: — Srap Tasmaner

Sure, but then how is that two different strings of words mean the same thing if meaning is use and how is it that the same string of words can mean different things if meaning is use? In speaking or writing there is always an intent to convey information. You can never say there is non-intentional contexts when using language. There is always intention preceding the use of words, or else how can you explain your use of words?

But you did confuse someone - me. — Harry Hindu

I hardly think I can take the credit for that. Your confusion is internal to you.

Then how is that I can use that same string of words to confuse others?

Even less can I take credit for that. Have you tried Chinese?

It's really simply, unenlightened. If meaning is use, then telling me why you made and submitted that post (your intent) won't tell me the meaning of the words. I will argue that I can tell you the meaning of the words the moment you tell me why you made and submitted it (your intent).

I'll also add that that is why you won't tell me your intent in making that post because you know it will expose the meaning of the words (is why you keep saying "I meant what I said", which doesn't help those who don't understand what you said, which it should if meaning were use).

So you're not going defend your claim that "and" has same reference as "the addition of other things"?

What context means in this context.

I thought I did, which is why I made the point that different strings of words can mean the same thing (refer to the same state-of-affairs), which is why meaning cannot be the use of a particular string of words.

You didn't.

I don't understand your point. As a matter of fact, both yours and unelightened's posts have become meaningless as you no longer seem to have the heart to stay in this conversation. I've asked you several questions and made several points you failed to address and you're hounding me for not defending some claim, when in my mind, I have and it is you that haven't.

Have another look at my post. You'll notice some numbered propositions and a question about them.