If someone who is not well acquainted with the English language was to ask what does cat mean you would have an easier time explaining it to them then if they were to ask what does mean mean? First of all you would be perplexed by the nature of the question as they’ve correctly used the word mean in this enquiry so they must know what mean means.

Just going of on a slight tangent there…

It could well be that the colour red in another country means go rather than stop — simplyG

At some point, probably during the Cultural Revolution, somebody in the People's Republic (Mao? Foo Yung?) decided that RED = STOP was contrary to socialism, so ordered the change to GREEN = STOP, RED = GO. It didn't go well. NOT because "red" inherently means stop, or "green" go, but because the meaning of red and green (for purposes of traffic) were too deeply integrated into behavior.

There would be no need for traffic signals then as the comrades would share the road in the good ol’ spirit of communism!!

The Universe isn't meaningless because it has inherent meaning (as far as I know) but because somebody (like me, like you) said it has meaning. We gave it meaning, like "The universe reveals the majesty of God." "The Universe reveals the glory of matter and energy." Or, "The universe is a tiresome infinity of tediously repetitious forms."

We can not claim that the universe is meaningless for the reason that we, meaning mongers that we are, are in the universe. Even whining teen-age nihilists can not escape meaning by claiming that life is pointless and the universe is meaningless. In one narrow way, meaninglessness, vacuums, emptiness, absences, vacancies, etc. are loaded with meaning--maybe gray, dry, dusty, stuffy meaning, but meaning none the less.

I agree with that and if nihilists ever lacked meaning then they should create one but that’s asking too much of them.

But if we take meaning to be the same as purpose then even a nihilist can’t complain unless they’re the suicidal type.

The purpose of man is to exist simple as that and try to make that existence a happy one not just for oneself but for others to.

If our purpose here is to simply be is that not meaning enough ? Why do we try to look for some sort of extravagant meaning ?

And that's why I say human life doesn't have meaning. It isn't a referent for something else. — GRWelsh

The problem is that people use the word otherwise. Quite a lot of incompetent language users, if you are right. So for instance, is Victor Frankl's "Man's Search For Meaning" just incompetent?

Why do we try to look for some sort of extravagant meaning ? — simplyG

Why indeed?

The purpose of man is to exist — simplyG

Apparently that isn't a sufficient reason. Were existence more difficult for us all (not just one), and survival less certain then perhaps "existence for its own sake" would be enough. For quite some time life has been relatively easy to maintain, which gives us time to think about many more meanings,

But aren't looks, actions, poems, and lives all signs? — Leontiskos

A look and poem, I suppose so, yes.

An action? Unless it is an act of communication, it wouldn't seem so. The same for a life, I don't see how a human life can be treated as a sign.

The point I was making is that conveyance or "meaning relationships" does not exhaust the meaning of meaning, and we know this because some signs convey more meaningful things than other signs. For example, a wedding ring is much more meaningful than a crumb on the floor, even though they are both signs which signify a reality. — Leontiskos

This is a good point. Now I wonder if in fact there are two distinct meanings of meaning: sense, and significance. Or, is significance conveyed with "meaningful", a distinct word from "meaning"?

For quite some time life has been relatively easy to maintain, which gives us time to think about many more meanings, — BC

Meaning would then be a subjective enterprise for each individual whether that is to make one’s life comfortable or to remove barriers that make it uncomfortable. Some are more positive such as seeing more of the world, exploring, doing philosophy, meditating, reflecting or conquering oneself. Life sometimes is just there to be appreciated and be glad that you are here on this journey.

Life sometimes is just there to be appreciated and be glad that you are here on this journey. — simplyG

Good. I agree. We can live life this way to the extent that we can obtain innocence. I imagine this is the way life is experienced by animals for brief moments of time when they are not hungry, are not being actively preyed upon, the weather is nice, no threats are in view. We can, perhaps, experience life in innocence for much longer periods of time than a squirrel or goose.

Unlike 'the lilies of the fields, we have to strive to regain innocence. Our normal social selves are, biblically and secularly speaking, as innocent as the driven entrepreneur. We are busy getting and spending, laying waste our powers, and all the time hashing over the meaning of it all.

Before trying to understand a concept in philosophy, I think about which category the concept should be. Using this 'logic', it helps me to make the 'correct' premises. Something like meaning and concepts can be seen in two different views: epistemology (if it is a form of knowledge) or metaphysics (if it depends on the truth/reality of our knowledge) and more precisely, I would include this exchange in a subcategory: Philosophy of Language or "metalinguistics". — javi2541997

So is the above an explanation of a Kant-Friesian approach? :

Well, it turns out that it is a matter of metaphysics, and specifically speaking, "A Kant-Friesian" approach. — javi2541997

Again, I confess to being confused.

I clicked on the link you provided and found myself lost.
I extracted a quote:

The theory of universals also gives us the theory of meaning, since meaning consists of abstract properties, so that meaning is also an artifact of the forms of necessity, both the meaning of words and the meaning of things -- of life and the world. The complete theory thus has required some distinctive elements of Kant-Friesian doctrine, including Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism, restated as ontological undecidability (http://www.friesian.com/undecd-1.htm), and a Friesian theory of the modes of necessity (http://www.friesian.com/system.htm). Deeper issues of meaning, both for the ultimate significance of matters of value and for religious questions, concern other aspects of Friesian metaphysics (http://www.friesian.com/metaphys.htm) and epistemology (http://www.friesian.com/epistem.htm).

The links led to both metaphysics and epistemology. A fascinating 'Deuteronomy'.
So, I'm still not clear how you arrived at your conclusion.

Your approach is to decide which category a philosophical concept should be boxed.
You seem to suggest that this discussion (see underlined) should rest in a subcategory:
Philosophy of Language.

However, this is a main category distinct from 'Metaphysics and Epistemology', according to TPF.

Either way, @hypericin placed it in 'General Discussion' for a reason, reflected in the OP.
The exploration of 'meaning' involves more than philosophical definitions. It is interdisciplinary:

...the authors arrive at a list of about 16 different definitions in use by "reputable philosophers" not counting its use in phrases like "the meaning of life", mentioned in the op, which they dismiss as meaningless. — unenlightened

I could go on about TPF Categories but this is not the time or place.

Your approach is to decide which category a philosophical concept should be boxed.
You seem to suggest that this discussion (see underlined) should rest in a subcategory:
Philosophy of Language. — Amity

Exactly, Amity. But boxing this OP in the 'Philosophy of Language' category is just a personal opinion, which helps me to understand it. I do not pretend to say if the OP is in the right or wrong direction of debating. I don't even have enough knowledge on the matter! :smile:

What is meant by "mean"?

Road signs have meanings, very rigid and objective ones.

Words (like "meaning") have meanings, slightly mushier than road signs. — hypericin

The fact that we are thinking and feeling beings means that everything has some sort of meaning, because we associate physical stimuli with our memories and ideas. That gives all objects some importance beyond their physical stimuli. As for ideas, they must have meaning, because they are not physical by nature. When we ask what life means, we are seeking any answer beyond the surface, beyond what actually exists, that explains or develops the concept of existence.

A look and poem, I suppose so, yes.

An action? Unless it is an act of communication, it wouldn't seem so. The same for a life, I don't see how a human life can be treated as a sign. — hypericin

If an arbitrary phoneme can be a sign, then why can't an action or a life? Photographers capture actions and use them as signs or even symbols. Biographers capture lives and help people see these lives as signs of one thing or another. But people always do this same thing even without photographs or biographies. For example, the life of Martin Luther King Jr. is a sign of hope and progress in the realm of racial discrimination, and it had already taken on this signification long before a biography was written.

Now I wonder if in fact there are two distinct meanings of meaning: sense, and significance. Or, is significance conveyed with "meaningful", a distinct word from "meaning"? — hypericin

I think they shade into one another. For example, a distinction that is not meaningful for Sue will, at least at some point, not have sense for Sue. For most people the arcane distinctions that analytic philosophers make are not perceptible precisely because they are not meaningful, and it is only by helping the person understand the significance of the distinction that one can get them to see what the distinction even means. Usually this is done by illustrating the historical disputes that gave rise to the distinction.

There surely is a distinction to be had, but the word "meaning" is clearly used for both of them.

I feel correlation is close, but it is missing something.

Clearly correlation itself is not enough. The word "peanut" correlates with the word "butter", and smoking correlates with heart disease, but these are not their meanings.

On the other hand, "correlation" seems to understate what is going on with meaning. For instance, does "3 + 3" correlate with 6, in the same way that smoke correlates with a fire? It doesn't seem so. Rather, the expression is axiomatically endowed with the meaning, "the sum of 3 and 3", because "3" is endowed with the meaning "three units", and "+" with "the sum of what is to the left and right". Just as a computer opcode ADD more than correlates with an addition, in some sense it *is* addition.

Outside the contexts which endow these meanings, the symbols are nothing. "3 + 3" is just a scribble in a culture where it is not recognized, ADD is just a number outside the computer. Inside them, the meaning seems absolute.

Although you made this caveat, in the context, "my life has no meaning", the complaint not that one's life doesn't correlate with anything.

However, I do think there is a general principle that unites them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What about this? Meaning is just the counterpart to representation. "+" is the representation of an addition operation, which is +'s meaning.

Representation has meaning according to a context, which can be physical (smoke/fire), social (money/value, "carrot"/edible orange root), or personal (orange/nostalgia, life/purpose). But the core concept of meaning is agnostic to these possibilities, it applies to all of them.

For any X, one can X, "what does X mean". This means, "treat this X as a representation. What is X's corresponding meaning?". This may or may not have an unambiguous answer, or it may have no answer at all: X is just meaningless.

One thing I think is crucial is that the meaning must in some way surpass the representation. The paradigmatic case of this is signs: signs themselves are nothing. "+" is just two marks intersecting, all the juice is in the meaning, the addition. But all meaning, I think, surpasses its representation.

You use "representation" a lot.

Is meaning just representation?

Are you claiming that meaning is just information...?

Clearly correlation itself is not enough. The word "peanut" correlates with the word "butter", and smoking correlates with heart disease, but these are not their meanings.

This is thinking much too high level. "Meaning" for us is the result of a massive amount of communications at lower levels. It's better to think of the correlation that occurs at the level of Hebbian "fire together wire together," selection-like neuronal development. Or think about how children learn words. Looking for correlations between compound words is sort of looking in the wrong place.

On the other hand, "correlation" seems to understate what is going on with meaning. For instance, does "3 + 3" correlate with 6, in the same way that smoke correlates with a fire? It doesn't seem so. Rather, the expression is axiomatically endowed with the meaning, "the sum of 3 and 3", because "3" is endowed with the meaning "three units", and "+" with "the sum of what is to the left and right". Just as a computer opcode ADD more than correlates with an addition, in some sense it *is* addition.

I think this is prehaps confusing things. "Three" is a sound that is associated with the quantity three in a fairly arbitrarily manner. Based on the fact that some animals can do basic arithmetic, I think it's fair to say that the quantity three was probably recognized before a word was ever created for the quantity.

It's important to remember that our communication, which seems so natural and effortless to us, and so simplistic, emerges from an absolutely mind boggling amount of communication at lower levels, e.g. the complex interactions between neurons, glial cells, sensory systems, etc.

What you seem to be getting at is something similar to the Scandal of Deduction. Certain types of messages don't seem to transmit any information because the inputs to the process fully determine their outputs. But IMO, this is more of a cognitive trick than anything else. Sure, 3+3 seems eternally equivalent with six, it's cognitively automatic to see that relation, but what about √512 × 19 ÷ 3? The same determinism is there, and yet the answer will surprise us, it will give us more information. This suggests that we can't conflate the "determinism" of how inputs into a formal system work with the causal determinism at work underlying our conciousness.

Formal systems and mathematics, as practiced by humans, are abstractions that exist within conciousness. IMHO, one of the big wrong turns in philosophy is to conflate the seeming eternal nature of such "closed" systems with their existence outside of the substrate in which they exist, i.e., thought. But even if mathematics "in some way" exists as a closed system outside of our experience, the fact is still that we only seem to access said systems in experience, an experience that is underpinned by nature, not by some special Platonic element of the soul, etc.



IMO, the best example of this comes from the Stroop Test. What could be more surface level in terms of cognitive information then that a blue object looks blue? But put a bunch of names of colors up and mismatch the color of the font from the color of the text and people read off the colors they see much slower and often inaccurately. This is often explained as a sort of crosstalk between regions of the brain. Computation itself involves communication, which occurs over time. That's why "eternal relations," are, IMO, simply abstractions. We can abstract mathematics away from its context in the world, tweak rules, etc. but that never makes our thoughts not causally grounded in the correlation based communications studied by neuroscientists.

What about this? Meaning is just the counterpart to representation. "+" is the representation of an addition operation, which is +'s meaning.

Representation is much less basic. It assumes a lot. Does anything except for complex living organism do representation?

But a dry wadi holds information about where water has been, foot prints in sand hold information about which animal has walked there. But in what way does sand do representation?

I agree it does seem sort of backwards. Representation is something we do as toddlers, drawing in crayon, whereas we often only learn about correlation in college. But the basics of information theory can't have representation first since things like logic gates and pulses of light only "represent" anything in virtue of a complex entity that can actually "represent things to itself," interacting with them. Correlation is something rocks can achieve though.

Notably, you can formulate Wittgenstein's insights about how language correlates with behavior in terms of information theory pretty well too, and this has the benefit of grounding the insights in a theory that bears fruit from quantum physics to economics, about as wide of a paradigm shifter as you can get.

Why do we try to look for some sort of extravagant meaning ? — simplyG

Because we can. Why do we walk when we could crawl all our lives? Why do we go to the moon? Why do we write string quartets, novels, and poetry? Because we can. We don’t not do the things we can do. Why would we not?

No, because meaning has an experiential element. Like I said, I am not convinced by any of the explanations of how first person experience might emerge from information (or anything else for that matter). This means we're missing something essential. However, I don't think that entails we don't have a grip on at least one essential element, the correlative element.

Meaning isn't just information, but it seems closely related to it. But this relationship does not seem straightforward and I don't think it will be easy to formalize. So, defining semantic information in terms of excluded possible worlds ala Carnap-Bar Hillel Information seems like a false start at best. That more complex internal life seems to track with more complex organisms seems to suggest that discovering what undergirds the experiential side of meaning will require understanding organisms at a very fine grained level.

Rather, I just meant that information is obviously part of meaning. And information is extremely general. So, it's a good place to start looking for the most general principles that result in meaning. Information is important for "tying meaning to the world," and to the sciences, even if it obviously misses part of the story (the experiential elements).

[...] boxing this OP in the 'Philosophy of Language' category is just a personal opinion, which helps me to understand it. — javi2541997

It seems that it is more than 'just a personal opinion'. You have used your knowledge about Philosophy and its Concepts logically to make 'correct' premises. Do the scare quotes around 'correct' mean they are 'provisional' assumptions? Are there only 2 views/theories of 'meaning'? Perhaps, yes, if the spotlight zooms in on:

1. Semantic and 2. Foundational - as always there are lists of competing sub-theories and views.

The term “theory of meaning” has figured, in one way or another, in a great number of philosophical disputes over the last century. Unfortunately, this term has also been used to mean a great number of different things. In this entry, the focus is on two sorts of “theory of meaning”. The first sort of theory—a semantic theory—is a theory which assigns semantic contents to expressions of a language. The second sort of theory—a foundational theory of meaning—is a theory which states the facts in virtue of which expressions have the semantic contents that they have. — Theories of Meaning - SEP

I do not pretend to say if the OP is in the right or wrong direction of debating. I don't even have enough knowledge on the matter! — javi2541997

Why would the OP be considered a right or wrong direction? What would be 'enough knowledge'?
It's an exploration.
I like the way it flows with diverse perspectives, knowledge and experience. Zooming in and out.

Perhaps, it's time to ask what prompted @hypericin to ask the questions in the OP?

What would be 'enough knowledge'? — Amity

There are more users who would have better and more precise answers than me, because they have a background in Linguistics and Philosophy, something that I don't.

It seems that it is more than 'just a personal opinion'. You have used your knowledge about Philosophy and its Concepts logically to make 'correct' premises. Do the scare quotes around 'correct' mean they are 'provisional' assumptions? Are there only 2 views/theories of 'meaning'? Perhaps, yes, if the spotlight zooms in on — Amity

I think more than premises, they are 'tools' for me. I personally believe that this OP is understood using Philosophy of Language and some authors, as Steven Pinker explains this very well, or at least, I liked it a lot. Nonetheless, I am aware that some members would disagree about the way I see and understand 'meaning', because it is something that maybe goes beyond than just boxing in categories.

There are more users who would have better and more precise answers than me, because they have a background in Linguistics and Philosophy, something that I don't. — javi2541997

OK. I understand what you mean. But would that still be 'enough' for you? Or just different and leading to even more theoretical questions. As if there aren't enough theories going the rounds.
What do we learn from them all circling and competing with each other in almost a spiral of confusion?
What is the key importance - implications and benefit - to humans and their communication.
How does a mess of philosophical theories help? When there are other more practical disciplines?

I am aware that some members would disagree about the way I see and understand 'meaning', because it is something that maybe goes beyond than just boxing in categories. — javi2541997

Of course! It would be surprising and boring if there were only one main understanding of 'meaning'.
My problem, I suppose, lies in the fixation of where the discussion should be placed.
It's fine if that is where the OP's main interest lies. But I think it narrows the exploration and would not necessarily have attracted those from other perspectives. We would have lost something...

But would that still be 'enough' for you? — Amity

Well, this is a good question, because there is not always enough for the seek for knowledge. I think I was referring to a technical context/idea. Trying to answer this interesting topic, but not having 'enough' background to explore its nature. I must assume that I need to read more books related to philosophy, because most of the time I only read Japanese literature. This is not something I regret, but it is obvious that I have lost some information on other topics. Maybe I should be more paradigmatic.

How does a mess of philosophical theories help? When there are other more practical disciplines? — Amity

You are right!

Trying to answer this interesting topic, but not having 'enough' background to explore its nature. I must assume that I need to read more books related to philosophy because most of the time I only read Japanese literature — javi2541997

Well, literature is arguably just as, if not more important than philosophy when it comes to 'meaning'. The combination of the two, well...that kind of narrative impresses me much.

I think you are well-placed to answer at least one of the questions in the OP:

Stories and histories have meanings, though they vary between readers. Yet, any old meaning won't do. — hypericin

This acknowledges different interpretations (even translations) of text.
But why would 'any old meaning' not do?

Perhaps, it's time to ask what prompted hypericin to ask the questions in the OP? — Amity

It was prompted by another thread: there is no meaning of life

There are a few common and contradictory kinds of responses to this sort of question.

• The meaning of life is something fixed and definite, i.e. procreation, God's will
• It is up to you to invest your life with meaning
• The question itself has no meaning

Meaning is a property of things which must be properly apprehended; meaning is fluid and abundant, an exuberant exudation of human life; meaning is elusive, and more often than not, illusory. So, which is it? What does meaning... mean?

Meaning seems to be of great import to philosophers; the whole enterprise can be thought of as a search for meaning. Conversely, it always seems to threaten to collapse into meaninglessness, mere assemblages of words. We've all encountered this, here, and from "real" philosophers. As I attempt to write philosophically, I'm always haunted by the doubt, what does all this even mean?

There is a philosophical tradition (which I am not totally unsympathetic to) which "answers" questions by consigning them to meaninglessness. It's convenient enough, for all these seeming imponderable questions to be mere misuse of language. We can move on with our life. But what does it mean for these questions, seemingly so full of meaning, to be in fact meaningless? Can this even be, if meaning is in my head?

What gets to have meaning, and what doesn't? What are the rules? What is this "meaning" we are so worked up about?

This acknowledges different interpretations (even translations) of text.
But why would 'any old meaning' not do? — Amity

I was trying to show that meaning is more or less fluid or rigid, depending on where it is found. Stories are an intermediate case. Clearly they admit to multiple interpretations. But not any interpretation. Little Red Riding Hood is not a parable about the dangerous and deceptive nature of the over-hirsute; to most, this is a misreading.

I think you are well-placed to answer at least one of the questions in the OP: — Amity

I think not. I am not capable to do so and @hypericin just answered you. I alude to what he states.

On the other hand, I wonder what you refer to as 'old meaning'. I am lost here. I do not understand what you mean by such a concept or idea.

Thanks for the response and further questions to reflect on.
I really don't understand why you think you are not capable of responding to questions asked. Do you think there has to be a 'perfect' or 'correct' answer?

Related to the 'intermediate case' of stories, you have not only read but have written meaningful content with meaning.

During the Literature Event, we talked about haiku and other types of Japanese poetry.
They can be simple or ambiguous. An understanding at the level of immediate perception or those with a deeper meaning. All kinds have a 'meaning'.

I wonder what you think of this article about Japanese Literature, in particular, this quote:

A decade after the works of English Romantic poets such as Shelley and William Wordsworth had influenced Japanese poetry, the translations made by Ueda Bin of the French Parnassian and Symbolist poets made an even more powerful impression.

Ueda wrote, “The function of symbols is to help create in the reader an emotional state similar to that in the poet’s mind; symbols do not necessarily communicate the same conception to everyone.” This view was borrowed from the West, but it accorded perfectly with the qualities of the tanka.

Because of the ambiguities of traditional Japanese poetic expression, it was natural for a given poem to produce different effects on different readers; the important thing, as in Symbolist poetry, was to communicate the poet’s mood. If the Japanese poets of the early 1900s had been urged to avoid contamination by foreign ideas, they would have declared that this was contrary to the spirit of an enlightened age. But when informed that eminent foreign poets preferred ambiguity to clarity, the Japanese responded with double enthusiasm. — Japanese Literature - Britannica

'old meaning — javi2541997

The phrase is 'any old' - it's an idiom.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any%20old
Hope this helps!

There is a philosophical tradition (which I am not totally unsympathetic to) which "answers" questions by consigning them to meaninglessness. It's convenient enough, for all these seeming imponderable questions to be mere misuse of language. We can move on with our life. But what does it mean for these questions, seemingly so full of meaning, to be in fact meaningless? — hypericin

Perhaps it means that your brain is intuitively projecting meaning onto the question, despite where your more consciously reasoned thinking points?

Can this even be, if meaning is in my head? — hypericin

To me it seems to me like a good example, of meaning being in our heads.

I didn't pretend to find the 'perfect' answer, but I just admit that I do not see myself as capable as of answering those complex questions.

On the other hand, regarding your quote from Japanese literature, Yes, I feel more comfortable with this topic and I can provide answers with knowledge.

Japanese literature is well known for being ambiguous, and I fully agree with the author of the paper in Britannica. There was a big debate amongst modern Japanese authors whether they should be writing in this technique because they were receiving a lot of influence from Western authors, who are very different from them, obviously. To be honest, if a haiku is not ambiguous, you kill the haiku. The ambiguity is the main essence of these poems, and fortunately modern Japanese haijin have not given up on this. Yet, I understand that it is a big and complex task for translators, because how do you translate this ambiguity into Western languages? It reminds me of Sofia Coppola's film: Lost in translation.