Have another look at my posts and you will notice several unanswered questions.

Looking at your post again won't help. Why don't you try rephrasing your question. I really don't know what you're asking.

You made a point and provided a link in a previous post, which I debunked and you never addressed it or acknowledged it. This is getting old.

I'm afraid we're just going to keep taking past each other, Harry, so I'll take my leave. Happy philosophizing.

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. — Harry Hindu

It's really simple, Harry, I already told you, I meant exactly what I said. I intended to say what I said, and that is what I meant.

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). — Harry Hindu

No, Harry. the meaning, according to you, is my intention, and my intention in this post is to say what I am saying, and my intention in that post was to say what I was saying. I might make a mistake, and in that case my intention would be other than my actual post, but in these instances that is not the case.

Suppose my intention was to make your head explode. Then, if the meaning of words was the intention of the speaker, I would have to say " This sentence makes Harry's head explode.", or something similar. If the meaning of my words is my intention, I have already told you my intention by saying the words, and there is no sense asking me to say other words to express the same intention, because other words would express another intention. You are asking me to do the impossible, and then thinking you have won the argument when I can't do it, and inventing an intention for my non-expression of intention when I have already reiterated that my intention was to say what I said. My intention in not doing the impossible is nothing at all.

Asking you to rephrase the question is "talking past each other"? Go figure. Maybe it's because you don't know how to rephrase a question if meaning is use? How could a question be rephrased and still mean the same thing?

No, Harry. the meaning, according to you, is my intention, and my intention in this post is to say what I am saying, and my intention in that post was to say what I was saying. I might make a mistake, and in that case my intention would be other than my actual post, but in these instances that is not the case. — unenlightened

No. If you made a mistake then you made a mistake in projecting your intention by using the wrong words. You still have an intention and you can only say that you made a mistake by having an intention that your words didn't project! How else can you say that you made a mistake in the use of words? - because they didn't match your intentions! Ignorant.

Suppose my intention was to make your head explode. Then, if the meaning of words was the intention of the speaker, I would have to say " This sentence makes Harry's head explode.", or something similar. — unenlightened

That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen you write. Saying " This sentence makes Harry's head explode." displays your intention that you want to convey that that sentence makes Harry's head explode." As I have said numerous times in this thread, that saying or writing anything is a result of our intention to convey information. Your intent in saying that isn't to make my head explode, it would be to convey that that sentence makes my head explode. Because that sentence doesn't make my head explode, you made a mistake in using that string of words in trying to make my head explode (in trying to use those words to accomplish your goal).

If the meaning of my words is my intention, I have already told you my intention by saying the words, and there is no sense asking me to say other words to express the same intention, because other words would express another intention. You are asking me to do the impossible, and then thinking you have won the argument when I can't do it, and inventing an intention for my non-expression of intention when I have already reiterated that my intention was to say what I said. My intention in not doing the impossible is nothing at all. — unenlightened

If all you needed were to say words to get at someone's intention, then we would never have a problem in understanding each other. We do. We can lie. We can say things we don't mean, which is to say that our use of words are hiding our intentions. I win the argument because you can't be consistent, nor do you answer the questions, or address the points I made, which leaves holes in your argument. Just tell me why you post anything on this forum. Isn't it because you have the intent to convey the information in your head?

We can say things we don't mean — Harry Hindu

Exactly. Our intentions can be at odds with the meaning of our words. That we can say things we don't intend is exactly why it is wrong to say that a word's meaning is the speaker's intention.

It all comes down to how you define "meaning" and "use".

If the "meaning"/"use" vs. the "non-meaning"/"misuse" of words is the equivalent of following the grammatical and spelling and pronunciation rules of the language, or not, then how is it that people can misuse language in this sense and we can still understand them (what they meant (Intended) to say)?

If the "meaning"/"use" vs. the "non-meaning"/"misuse" of words is based on the listener's understanding of the words - of them getting what was said, then this is the argument I'm making. You can say that you used words when the person you're speaking to, or writing to, gets what you are saying, and you misused words if they didn't get the gist of what you were saying. So you can actually be grammatically correct and your spelling/pronunciation is perfect but you didn't use words because the listener/reader didn't get it (which happens), or you can be grammatically incorrect and spelling/pronunciation is incorrect, and people can still get what was said, (which happens).

If what you mean by "meaning"/"use" vs. "non-meaning"/"misuse" is something else, then please explain.

When a Harry spurge psychic dilemma because five sideways, misusing symptom communicates upside. — Harry Hindu

This string of words isn't grammatically correct, nor did the reader get what was said, so how can unenlightened say that he used words, or that he meant what he said, unless he is defining "meaning"/use" differently than the above two explanations?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen you write. — Harry Hindu

You haven't been paying attention, then.

If the "meaning"/"use" vs. the "non-meaning"/"misuse" of words is based on the listener's understanding of the words - of them getting what was said, then this is the argument I'm making. You can say that you used words when the person you're speaking to, or writing to, gets what you are saying, and you misused words if they didn't get the gist of what you were saying. — Harry Hindu

What if the person you're speaking to is a young child or someone with limited English abilities? It doesn't seem right to label it as a misuse of words if most other English-speaking people would understand it.

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). — Harry Hindu

I might use the word 'lemon' to refer to an inferior automobile, and I might do this intentionally, but the meaning of the word is (or refers to) the car, not to my intention.

Alternatively, I might use the word 'sanguine' believing it to be a synonym for and intending it to mean 'pessimistic', but its actual meaning is the opposite, and I can be rightfully admonished for my incorrect use which has caused so much confusion for my audience. However, if my unconventional (i.e. incorrect) use were to become conventional (i.e. correct), if most people started to use it that way, then that would become its actual meaning, and people would finally come around to my way of thinking. But that's quite rare.

Exactly. Our intentions can be at odds with the meaning of our words. That we can say things we don't intend is exactly why it is wrong to say that a word's meaning is the speaker's intention. — Michael

I'd say that our meaning can be at odds with our use of words. This is why we say, "I meant to say that", or "I didn't mean to say that.", where "mean" refers to intent. That is unless we are misusing the word "mean", but then many people use the word "mean" in this way (to refer to their intent), which would mean that there is a consensus of using "mean" in this way. So our own use of words refers to "meaning" as intent, or more generally, the cause. So to keep on saying that meaning-is-use contradicts how we use the word "mean" in referring to our intent in using words.

What if the person you're speaking to is a young child or someone with limited English abilities? It doesn't seem right to label it as a misuse of words if most other English-speaking people would understand it. — Luke

But we aren't talking about those other people. For those other people, we would use the words differently to accomplish our goal. We would simply be adapting our speech (our use of words) to the goal at hand (getting the current listener to understand what we intend to say).

As I said, people can "misuse" words in the sense that they aren't being grammatically correct, we can still understand their intent. How is it that people can "misuse" words in this way yet we can still understand what they mean? This question needs to be addressed. I've posed it several times and it gets ignored.

I might use the word 'lemon' to refer to an inferior automobile, and I might do this intentionally, but the meaning of the word is (or refers to) the car, not to my intention. — Luke

Exactly. You use a word to refer to something else. That is your intent - to refer to something - to convey information. If you didn't intend to convey that the car is a "lemon", then you would have never spoken (used) those words. Can you use words, or any tool for that matter, without intent? To say that you use anything is to imply intent. You cannot separate the two concepts of intent and use. To say one, is to imply the other.

Alternatively, I might use the word 'sanguine' believing it to be a synonym for and intending it to mean 'pessimistic', but its actual meaning is the opposite, and I can be rightfully admonished for my incorrect use which has caused so much confusion for my audience. However, if my unconventional (i.e. incorrect) use were to become conventional (i.e. correct), if most people started to use it that way, then that would become its actual meaning, and people would finally come around to my way of thinking. But that's quite rare. — Luke

But how would they know that you meant something else to admonish you?

New ways of using words arise frequently. Look at all the metaphors we have. They didn't start as a conventional use of the word, yet they took hold in the population. This means that we can use any word we want to refer to what we want, and it is simply a matter of that way of using words becomes popular or not. But we can still convey the same information using a different string of words to a person who didn't understand the metaphor. If this is possible then how is meaning use if we can use different strings of words to mean the same thing, or the same string of words can mean something different? This is another question that has been ignored.

I'd say that our meaning can be at odds with our use of words. This is why we say, "I meant to say that", or "I didn't mean to say that.", where "mean" refers to intent. That is unless we are misusing the word "mean", but then many people use the word "mean" in this way (to refer to their intent), which would mean that there is a consensus of using "mean" in this way. So our own use of words refers to "meaning" as intent, or more generally, the cause. So to keep on saying that meaning-is-use contradicts how we use the word "mean" in referring to our intent in using words. — Harry Hindu

As I have repeatedly said, that we often use the word "mean" to refer to intent does not refute Wittgenstein's claim that the meaning of a word is its use.

If we intend to say one thing but the words we use mean something else then we have misspoken. You don't show this to be wrong simply by replacing the word "intend" with the word "mean". That would be conflation.

Homonyms are a thing – as Wittgenstein himself notes in the quote I keep posting – but your entire argument seems to ignore that.

How we understand others is bodily. Thats where the real meaning comes from. You mirror them bodily. So that the meaning is action. If you cant do it, then you cant really understand what theyre saying, and when you repeat it, it wouldnt mean the same thing, because you wont be able to do what theyre doing when they say it.

So how do we understand each other when talking on the phone, or when posting on the internet?

We understand each other to a lesser extent over the phone, and we're all auspies on the intertubes or over texts. Thats way people continually improperly infer your disposition or emotional states in online discussions... and youre all able to survive my presence without being crushed by my overwhelming spiritual pressure.

But we aren't talking about those other people. For those other people, we would use the words differently to accomplish our goal. We would simply be adapting our speech (our use of words) to the goal at hand (getting the current listener to understand what we intend to say). — Harry Hindu

You stated that it is a misuse of words simply when others don't understand you. If this doesn't apply to toddlers and people with limited English skills, then you need to amend your claim that this constitutes a misuse.

As I said, people can "misuse" words in the sense that they aren't being grammatically correct, we can still understand their intent. How is it that people can "misuse" words in this way yet we can still understand what they mean? This question needs to be addressed. I've posed it several times and it gets ignored. — Harry Hindu

As I said, people can "misuse" words in the sense that they aren't being grammatically correct, we can still understand their intent. How is it that people can "misuse" words in this way yet we can still understand what they mean? This question needs to be addressed. I've posed it several times and it gets ignored. — Harry Hindu

It's not uncommon for a fluent speaker to understand what someone is/was "trying to say". If meaning is use (and vice versa) then the relevant misuse is a lack or alteration of meaning.

Exactly. You use a word to refer to something else. That is your intent - to refer to something - to convey information. If you didn't intend to convey that the car is a "lemon", then you would have never spoken (used) those words. Can you use words, or any tool for that matter, without intent? To say that you use anything is to imply intent. You cannot separate the two concepts of intent and use. To say one, is to imply the other. — Harry Hindu

I thought you were disagreeing with Wittgenstein? If you cannot separate intent and use, then what's your disagreement with the assertion that meaning is use?

But how would they know that you meant something else to admonish you? — Harry Hindu

Probably based on the context in which the words were spoken. If I described a pessimistic person as sanguine, others might think I was being sarcastic or they might question my use of the word.

This means that we can use any word we want to refer to what we want, and it is simply a matter of that way of using words becomes popular or not. — Harry Hindu

If you want others to understand you, then it's easier to use words conventionally rather than to say something and then wait for the conventions to possibly change in your favour at some future time.

As I have repeatedly said, that we often use the word "mean" to refer to intent does not refute Wittgenstein's claim that the meaning of a word is its use. — Michael

Then I need you to go back and read this post, , and answer those questions about what is meant by a "use" vs. a "misuse" of words.

If we intend to say one thing but the words we use mean something else then we have misspoken. You don't show this to be wrong simply by replacing the word "intend" with the word "mean". That would be conflation. — Michael

How is "misspoken" not equal to "misuse"? Again, you need to answer those questions in that post so that we can be on the same page.

Homonyms are a thing – as Wittgenstein himself notes in the quote I keep posting – but your entire argument seems to ignore that. — Michael

I haven't ignored that at all. It is the point I keep making - that the same string of words can mean different things. Again, you have to explain what a "use" of a word is vs. the "misuse" of a word. Are we using words by simply making noises and writing scribbles, or is does "use" entail following the rules of grammar and spelling, or does it have to do with your listener getting the gist of what you are saying (your intent to refer to something), or is it something else?

You stated that it is a misuse of words simply when others don't understand you. If this doesn't apply to toddlers and people with limited English skills, then you need to amend your claim that this constitutes a misuse. — Luke

It is a misuse of words when toddlers and people with limited English skills don't understand. As I said, We have to adapt our use of words to the listener. This isn't uncommon at all. We make assumptions all the time that people will understand us if we just use the proper grammar and spelling of words, but the fact is that they don't always understand us, even when speaking or writing properly. You can't expect everyone to know English as you do, or for everyone to have the same education level, and the same experience in speaking and writing English. Some even write better than they speak and vice versa.

It's not uncommon for a fluent speaker to understand what someone is/was "trying to say". If meaning is use (and vice versa) then the relevant misuse is a lack or alteration of meaning. — Luke

As I said, we alter the use of words frequently. We create metaphors, which would be an alteration, as you put it. We also engage in inside jokes, where only a select few, maybe only two people, understand an altered use of the word. So, if you are saying that "use" vs. "misuse" is simply following the way the majority uses English, then how is it that we use words that don't follow how the majority uses the word, and we still mean to say it that way (we purposely misused words)? How can we say that we misused words if the listener reacts in the way we predicted (we achieved our goal). Do you say that you misused a chair if it accomplished the goal it wasn't initially designed for? If so, then am I misusing words when I say, "I used that chair as a step stool to reach the higher shelf." Would it be better if I said, "I misued the chair as a step stool to reach the higher shelf."? Does anyone speak like that?

I thought you were disagreeing with Wittgenstein? If you cannot separate intent and use, then what's your disagreement with the assertion that meaning is use? — Luke

I didn't mean that your intent and use are the same thing. They are related causally. You can only use some tool after your intent comes to play. You have a plan in mind and then you go about executing that plan by using tools to accomplish the goal. To say that one exists, does not imply that the other exists in the moment. After all, we can have a plan without executing it. We can have the intent to do something tomorrow, well before our actual use of some thing. What I'm saying is that they are causally linked in a way that is fundamental. Use always follows intent.

Probably based on the context in which the words were spoken. If I described a pessimistic person as sanguine, others might think I was being sarcastic or they might question my use of the word. — Luke

Right. So sarcasm would be a misuse of words per your own explanation.

If you want others to understand you, then it's easier to use words conventionally rather than to say something and then wait for the conventions to possibly change in your favour at some future time. — Luke

When I think about getting others to understand me, I think about putting myself in their head to know how they use words (what words they know the meaning of (what they refer to)), so that I may use words in a way that they would understand what I meant (what I intended to refer to).

Consider a game of chess. The role of each chess piece is its use; its movement to and occupation of particular squares. But even though their role is their use, they can still be misused; for example, a pawn moving backwards.

When Wittgenstein says that the meaning of a word is its use, he's not saying that the meaning of a word is its individual moment-by-moment expression. He's saying that it's meaning is its conventional role in the familiar act of communication. "Hello" is what we say when we meet each other; "it is raining" is what we say when water falls from the clouds. That's why he specifically says "the meaning of a word is its use in the language-game" and not "the meaning of a word is my utterance of it".

But in chess, you have strict rules. We don't have those same strict rules in English. It isn't uncommon to "misuse" (per your explanation of "use" vs. "misuse") words on purpose and still get the reaction we wanted. If you suddenly made an illegal move and it was allowed by the opponent and he uses the same move, then how are we not using those pieces? How else do metaphors take hold if not by one person misusing a word that catches with others?

But in chess, you have strict rules. We don't have those same strict rules in English. — Harry Hindu

Sometimes we have strict rules, and sometimes the rules are vague. What difference does that make?

It isn't uncommon to misuse words on purpose and still get the reaction we wanted.

So? That I can say "nothing's wrong" to someone and that they can see past my words and understand that I want their help isn't that the sentence "nothing's wrong" means "something's wrong". Its meaning is its conventional use in the language-game, irrespective of my intentions as I utter it.

So? That I can say "nothing's wrong" to someone and that they can see past my words and understand that I want their help isn't that the sentence "nothing's wrong" means "something's wrong". Its meaning is its conventional use in the language-game, irrespective of my intentions as I utter it. — Michael

Saying "Nothing is wrong" is the conventional use of those words when you intend to hide that something is wrong. Your intent is what chooses the words to say in order to accomplish a goal, like hiding intent.

Metaphors and inside jokes are a unconventional use of words.

It is a misuse of words when toddlers and people with limited English skills don't understand. As I said, We have to adapt our use of words to the listener. This isn't uncommon at all. We make assumptions all the time that people will understand us if we just use the proper grammar and spelling of words, but the fact is that they don't always understand us, even when speaking or writing properly. You can't expect everyone to know English as you do, or for everyone to have the same education level, and the same experience in speaking and writing English. Some even write better than they speak and vice versa. — Harry Hindu

I agree that we sometimes need to "adapt our use of words to the listener". But I disagree that using a perfectly sensible sentence that any fluent speaker would understand should be characterised as a misuse of language. If it's being used correctly, how can it be a misuse?

As I said, we alter the use of words frequently. We create metaphors, which would be an alteration, as you put it. We also engage in inside jokes, where only a select few, maybe only two people, understand an altered use of the word. So, if you are saying that "use" vs. "misuse" is simply following the way the majority uses English, then how is it that we use words that don't follow how the majority uses the word, and we still mean to say it that way (we purposely misused words)? How can we say that we misused words if the listener reacts in the way we predicted (we achieved our goal). Do you say that you misused a chair if it accomplished the goal it wasn't initially designed for? If so, then am I misusing words when I say, "I used that chair as a step stool to reach the higher shelf." Would it be better if I said, "I misued the chair as a step stool to reach the higher shelf."? Does anyone speak like that? — Harry Hindu

You appear to identify an effective communication as a use of language and an ineffective communication as a misuse of language. That is, you equate a misuse of language with failing to achieve the goal of effective communication.

On the other hand, I equate a misuse of language with not following the conventions/rules of language (i.e. with incorrect usage). Therefore, I can note someone's incorrect grammar yet at the same time understand what they mean.

I didn't mean that your intent and use are the same thing. They are related causally. You can only use some tool after your intent comes to play. You have a plan in mind and then you go about executing that plan by using tools to accomplish the goal. To say that one exists, does not imply that the other exists in the moment. After all, we can have a plan without executing it. We can have the intent to do something tomorrow, well before our actual use of some thing. What I'm saying is that they are causally linked in a way that is fundamental. Use always follows intent. — Harry Hindu

I'm still unclear on why you disagree with Wittgenstein.

Right. So sarcasm would be a misuse of words per your own explanation. — Harry Hindu

No.

When I think about getting others to understand me, I think about putting myself in their head to know how they use words (what words they know the meaning of (what they refer to)), so that I may use words in a way that they would understand what I meant (what I intended to refer to). — Harry Hindu

Really? Sounds exhausting.

I agree that we sometimes need to "adapt our use of words to the listener". But I disagree that using a perfectly sensible sentence that any fluent speaker would understand should be characterised as a misuse of language. If it's being used correctly, how can it be a misuse? — Luke

There are plenty of times where we use perfectly sensible sentences and people still don't get what it is that you mean. Just look at this philosophy forum and try to count how many times people ask for clarification, or ask "what do you mean", or talk past each other, etc. It would be a misuse, even when using the correct grammar and spelling, when you didn't take into account the reader's own understanding of words and their experience with them. Using words requires more than simply uttering sounds in the correct order, with the correct number of syllables, etc. It requires that you get into the listener or reader's head.

You appear to identify an effective communication as a use of language and an ineffective communication as a misuse of language. That is, you equate a misuse of language with failing to achieve the goal of effective communication.

On the other hand, I equate a misuse of language with not following the conventions/rules of language (i.e. with incorrect usage). Therefore, I can note someone's incorrect grammar yet at the same time understand what they mean. — Luke

Yes, using words means communicating, while misusing words is miscommunicating.

If you can note someone's incorrect grammar, YET still understand what they mean then, using your own words, meaning isn't the same as correct grammar. You may say that you understood what they meant to say, meaning that you understood what the words they should have said in order to refer to some state-of-affairs. The state-of-affairs is what they mean, or what they are referring to, not the correct use of grammar. If you correct them, you aren't correcting their meaning, only their grammar.

I'm still unclear on why you disagree with Wittgenstein. — Luke

I did use the correct grammar and spelling, no? So how is it that you don't get my meaning if I used the correct grammar and spelling? If we can be grammatically correct and have the correct spelling and people still can't understand what was said, then meaning cannot be related to correct grammar and spelling of words.

When I think about getting others to understand me, I think about putting myself in their head to know how they use words (what words they know the meaning of (what they refer to)), so that I may use words in a way that they would understand what I meant (what I intended to refer to). — Harry Hindu

Really? Sounds exhausting. — Luke

Well, that is the difference between a good speaker/writer and a bad speaker/writer.

The state-of-affairs is what they mean... — Harry Hindu

This is very unclear. If the meaning of a word is some physical thing that it refers to (say an apple), then if I eat that physical thing then I've eaten the meaning of the word? I can understand eating the referent of the word, but not the meaning (as per Frege's distinction between sense and reference).

As I have said numerous times, meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. In language, meaning is the relationship between the symbol (a sound or scribble) and what it refers to, which would be one's intent to convey information about some thing or event. What someone means when they speak or write is to convey information about some thing or event. So, no, you can't eat the relationship between the apple and the word, "apple".

What someone means when they speak or write is to convey information about some thing or event — Harry Hindu

Again you're conflating. There's a difference between what someone intends when they speak and what the words mean. I might intend for you to turn left, but actually say "turn right". The meaning of my expression isn't my intention. I've misspoken. Even if, somehow, you correctly understand that I want you to turn left (say, because there isn't a right turning).

The definition of "meaning" per Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning
Is Merriam-Webster conflating meaning with intent?

When the conventional use of the word "meaning" is related to intention, then it would be unconventional to say "meaning is use". Your own argument defeats itself.

I'm not saying that you're conflating meaning and intention. I'm saying that you're conflating different meanings of "meaning"; the one which is "intention" and the one which is something else.

You're also conflating on what has meaning. We're talking about what words mean and you respond by talking about what the speaker means.

What the speaker means – what the speaker intends – is not the same thing as what the word means. I've given you an example of such a scenario in my previous post, where I intend for you to turn left but instead say "turn right". Even though I intend for you to turn left, "turn right" doesn't mean "turn left".

I'm not saying that you're conflating meaning and intention. I'm saying that you're conflating different meanings of "meaning"; the one which is "intention" and the one which is something else. — Michael

...which is? Your "something else" isn't part of the definition of "meaning" per Merriam-Webster. Again, you sidestep a point I made.

It's a nonsensical scenario. Why did you say "turn right" if you intended for me to turn left? - Unless you are saying you misspoke, or didn't know the correct words to say, or you intended to lie? If that is what you are saying, then why does the phrase, "you didn't say what you meant" apply where "meant" refers to intent?