This is obviously not true especially when you consider how a child learns. — Apustimelogist
Peffel is inaccessible presumably only because its an unusual concept but I see it as no different from a concept like a liger or mule or any other kind of hybrid thing that actually exists in reality and so is therefore an accessible concept. — Apustimelogist
Consider the word "angst".
We could use the dictionary, where "angst" is defined as "a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general". "Anxiety" is defined as "a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease about something with an uncertain outcome". Continuing, "worry" is defined as "feel or cause to feel anxious or troubled about actual or potential problems". "Troubled" is defined as "beset by problems or difficulties". Either the definitions become circular or are never ending. — RussellA
I am using "pointing" to include its synonyms, such as signalling, showing, indicating, gesturing, flagging, labelling, motioning, etc. — RussellA
The word "peffel" can be used by anyone to mean ""part [your] pen and part Eiffel Tower" regardless of your personal feelings about the words "pen" or "Eiffel Tower". — Luke
Violet is not your concept. But your understanding of the concept is accessible to others, depending on how you use it. — Luke
The point is that our experiences are irrelevant to linguistic meaning; to language use. — Luke
Synonyms are not to be used blindly to replace another synonyms just because they are synonyms — Corvus
What do you mean by "successfully" here? Could you please clarify? — Corvus
I recall the first time when I was confronted with the word, I had no idea what it meant, but by reading up the definition in the book, I roughly knew what it meant. — Corvus
True, they don't have the same meaning, only similar meanings. As Wittgenstein said, family resemblances. — RussellA
For the listener to understand the meaning of the sentence. — RussellA
What if the other party didn't know the meaning of "bamba", then what, what would be point of you saying it thinking that you knew the meaning? — Corvus
How can you successfully use the word "bamba" in a sentence if you don't know what it means? — RussellA
True, if I said "xx xyx yyxx yxyx", and neither of us knew the meaning of any of the words used, would anything meaningful arise from our conversation? — RussellA
5) The foreman must say "bring me X" — RussellA
If "X" didn't mean X, then nothing would happen and there would be no activity. — RussellA
If "X" simply meant the object, there would be no activity. The meaning of "X" is determined by the activity and not simply by the name of the object. — Fooloso4
True, that's why the foreman doesn't just say "X" but rather "bring me X". The word "bring" determines the activity, not the object "X". — RussellA
(PI 2)For this purpose they make use of a language consisting of the words “block”, “pillar”, “slab”,
“beam”.
The foreman may look at something X in the world, but if this observation didn't give rise to an inner concept Y, they would be aphilosophical zombie, and wouldn't be able to say "bring me X". Similarly, the assistant may look at something X in the world, but if this observation didn't give rise to an inner concept Z, they would also be a philosophical zombie, and wouldn't be able to bring X.
In order for something to happen, for there to be an activity, there must be all the following:
1) There must be an X in the world
2) X must have been named "X"
5) The foreman must say "bring me X"
3) The something X that the foreman looks at must give rise to his inner concept Y
4) The something X that the assistant looks at must give rise to his inner concept Z — RussellA
When I hear "meaning is its use", I sometimes see this as a normative statement, and not a descriptive one. If everyone were zombies, and/or if no one had an internal understanding of a word that roughly corresponds to the concept, but its use (outward behavior way they expressed and acted when they spoke or heard the word) was always correct, would you really say that people understand the "meaning" of a word? — schopenhauer1
For example, we don’t know someone is in pain, not because it is “unknowable”, but because when someone seems to be in pain, we don’t: “know” their pain, we react to it, to the person; their pain is a plea, a claim on us—we help them (or not); that’s how pain works.
— Antony Nickles
I have to disagree with you here. At PI 246, Wittgenstein says:
If we are using the word “know” as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know if I’m in pain.
— PI 246 — Luke
Actually no, RussellA has a point. — schopenhauer1
In the same way, anyone can use the word "pain" in language, regardless of anyone's personal sensation of pain. — RussellA
There are also private concepts, such as my personal experience when looking at something in the world having a wavelength of 400nm. — RussellA
I agree, as with the beetle in PI 293, the beetle drops out of consideration in the language game. — RussellA
Unless I am reading him wrong — schopenhauer1
How can a child successfully use the word "mwanasesere" if they don't know what is means? — RussellA
But the problem leads to my personal concepts of "pen" and "Eiffel Tower", both of which are unique to me, as they have developed over a lifetime of experiences that only I have had. — RussellA
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.