But the reason humans can do that is cognitive, not behavioral or social. And for humans to do that, there has to be a conceptual apparatus. So along the lines of what Chomsky argued. — Marchesk

Maybe your buddy here would be Quine, not Chomsky. Quine laid out an impressive argument indicating that the ability to apply logic to new situations has to be apriori know-how.

BTW.. do you know much about Carnap?

Yes, but it is a somewhat different issue that has to do with that quote from Plato. — Fafner

OK. Cool, thanks.

Good point. But the meaning of length itself does not come from using an arbitrary standard, like a stick, or someone's foot. Length is innate to us, like time and space. We don't create the meaning for those things.

My argument is that meaning and language games are built up from fundamental categories of thought that have to exist, or there is no language. Sure, a stick acquires the meaning of standard length by it's use, but length itself does not.

Therefore, meaning can't ONLY be use. — Marchesk

But notice we don't usually ask what a concept means. If we do, we're talking about its implications, not meaning as in: "What does that hieroglyph mean?"

My understanding is that Witt noticed that rule-following can't account for the entirety of communication because there has to be some source of normativity outside the system of rules. He looked to human interaction to find that source. You're saying we should look inward to find it.

Yes. I think it's just my non-linear thought processes producing the appearance of a disagreement between us. Looking at the wonderful quote you produced again:

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.

Yep. He's talking about the creative power of language. Duck/rabbit style. We make the stick a standard by comparing stuff to it. See? He's talking about meaning and existence simultaneously.

Thanks!

He's being cute. Obviously measuring the standard doesn't make sense. But people can still form the sentence, "The standard meter is one meter in length," so what do we say about that? Is it true or false? It's nether. The law of the excluded middle does not apply here. — Srap Tasmaner

That's the way I took it. The conundrum dissolves when we realize that as a species, we're conjurors.

It's true I agreed with the sentiment. I posted it because I detected grace. Think whatever you like.

But the stick does define what a meter is, or at least this is how it was historically (though nowadays it is defined differently, but that's irrelevant - we can just as well talk about the invented example of the 'standard sepia'). And it doesn't really matter whether you say that the meter stick represents the length of something or not, because the main point is that it is an essential instrument in the game of measuring which Wittgenstein has in mind. — Fafner

So you're saying we can disregard his use of "means of representation."? Don't you agree he's saying the instrument (whether standard meter or sepia) exists because of its function or role in our language games?

This is important to me because of a chicken/egg situation I see with meaning and use of language.

This is not what he says - there's no sense in measuring the standard because we chose to define it as a standard (or that it has been 'ordained' as you say), and not the other way round. — Fafner

Well we can't measure it without a second standard. Can you explain what he means when he says it is and is not a meter?

And what do you mean by "the reality of the standard is not related to a physical object"? — Fafner

Just that the stick is a standard because we say so. There's nothing in the physicality of the stick that says "I'm a standard."

What I liked about it was the turn of thought. The way things were doesn't tell us how things should be. If you don't find that groovy, you're just being bull-headed.

Where did I suggest anything was arbitrary? I don't even follow the use of this term in this context. "Arbitrary" describes the basis of a decision indicating it was without rational basis, just whim or caprice. It isn't like 1000 years ago a committee arbitrarily decided society should be a certain way. Society evolved the way it is, and perhaps for the reason you or Michael suggested. Obviously there's a reason things are as they are. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice.

We could provide a societal evolution theory explaining why certain groups became slaves and other masters, all of which may be correct, but none of which would justify continued subservience by the oppressed group. So sure, women were given the weaker roles because they were weaker, but since most contemporary jobs don't require clubbing tigers, adherence to Neanderthal norms is not only unjust, but it oppresses significant talents and limits potential human development. — Hanover

That's awesome.

I would like to understand that. But..

I'm not trying to be troublesome here, but the standard meter in Paris is not considered to be a representation of the concept of a meter. It's a standard. It's also not intended to represent the length of anything. Unless I'm misunderstanding how "representation" is being used here.

Wasn't he saying that since we can't measure the standard (because that would require a second standard), it's sort of ordained as the standard in practical use. The reality of the standard is not related to a physical object. It's basis is actually in use. He's going beyond meaning as use, here. It's reality in use.

Not too complicated. The same is true of the average abstraction, right?

I see. I was tripping up on 'to say it exists is to say it's part of our language game.'

That seems to imply a distinction between the physical stick and the Parisian standard.

Right. Talk about meters is a means of representation. The language game in which we talk about meters is a means of representation. Right?

(but of course language has many other functions other than to represent things) — Fafner

Of course. So in the quote you put up, by "our method of representation," he means the language game in play when we talk about fictional things. Where is the representation exactly?

Right. I've read that. And that language does fit nicely with a behaviorist's outlook (whether Witt was a behaviorist or not).

However, in the quote Fafner put up, "our method of representation" seems to be mentioned as a way of understanding what we might make of "language game." That would go contrary to behaviorism. A crow, when expressing an alarm vocalization due to the arrival of a hawk, is not representing anything with its speech. Behaviorism sort of makes us out to be like birds.

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance. — Michael

Among socializing mammals who demonstrate hierarchy, competition between males and females is rare. Each sex has its own hierarchy.

I think patriarchy as we know it developed with the demise of prominent female deities like Ashtar. I'm guessing there are several reasons that patriarchy became such a successful social structure. But I think there's more to it than that men finally noticed that women are physically weaker.

The Judeo-Christian tradition actually blames the first woman for the existence of evil. I noticed as a child that in most fairy tales the villain is female. Maybe it has to do with a reaction to superstition. Fear of witches, basically.

So by "language game" he meant a method of representation?

One's mind... prior to gaining one's initial worldview... is. — creativesoul

Why do you think that?

Too many pop tarts may well fatten the gut.

Obviously the mind is not a blank slate.

Does gay bashing make gay men submissive? No, I don't think so. — Bitter Crank

So you're saying the OP's logic is flawed. Cool.

So thought is a web-like thing?

Rage is rage. Brutal is brutal, it doesn't make all that much difference what the sexual orientation is. — Bitter Crank

It's called gay bashing. Does it make gay men submissive?

I'm thinking of a square. What correlation do you suppose is going on?

I went back and looked carefully at the OP and I just don't find anything about gay men there — Bitter Crank

I applied the opening poster's logic (detailed in subsequent posts) to the relationship between gay men and straight men.

I'm not exactly sure how the threat of brutality is supposed to show up in the demeanor of women or gay men. Maybe he'll explain that.

Hopefully not.

All thought consists entirely of mental correlation(there are no imaginable exceptions to the contrary). — creativesoul

I don't really understand what you're saying.

I'm in the moment most of the time when I'm at work. Some stories stick with me. I've been in the hospital myself in bad shape. That informs a lot of my interactions with people.

Dude comes into the emergency department burned extra crispy. Why? Dude is gay and he went to a bar and picked up Crazy MF. The two proceeded to a hotel room and Crazy tied Dude to a chair, covered him with gasoline and threw a match at him.

Down in the lobby the guy behind the desk sniffs barbecue and calls the fire department. The firemen locate the room and amazingly, Dude is still alive. He and his partner had agreed to go out for one last fling before committing to one another. And then this happened. True story.

According to the OP, this sort of thing has been happening for thousands of years, resulting in homosexual men being smart enough to be submissive to straight men because you never know when one of them is going to turn out to be Crazy. But we need not think of this as a bad thing.

The submissiveness of a gay man is beautiful. We all stand to learn something from it.

That's great. What song helps us understand homosexual relationships?

I think some people are thinking of behaviorism when they talk about meaning as use. A hard-core eliminative materialist might think of it that way (ironically).

You know he didn't say women are afraid of men. — T Clark

He said it repeatedly. He also suggested that the ideal status of a woman is submission.

Let's state the obvious. Women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles due to the power structure in place. Barriers have been reduced, but not eliminated. Some women have transcended those traditional roles through special effort, others have fully consented to embracing those traditional roles, and others still have tried but failed to overcome the limitations imposed by their social situation. That is to say that whatever successes elude women (other than those requiring brute muscle), is the result of environment, not some inherent leadership, intellectual, or emotional deficiency existing specially in women.

Are we really having this discussion? — Hanover

(Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)

It may not be helpful to ask the OP if he has a girlfriend. If the OP believes all women are afraid of men, his girlfriend or wife is probably afraid of him, as his mother was afraid of his father or boyfriend.

Some people really don't realize there's another way to live and interact.

We first identify what human thought/belief consists in/of. We then separate the elements not existentially contingent upon language from the ones that are. If the elements of thought/belief not existentially contingent upon language are - in and of themselves - sufficient for thought/belief, then we have the strongest possible ground for positing the core of all human thought/belief. — creativesoul

Language is a means of expression. Any thought is a thought of x or that x, with x being a proposition. Whether or not a thought must be expressed, as part of an internal monologue if not externally communicated, is something neuroscientists ponder and seek to research.

If you want to disregard the empirical/scientific approach, then what are your options? You could approach it as a rationalist, in which case you'll need to lay out the principles you'll be using to draw your conclusions. Otherwise: phenomenology?

holy crap! Liberation is at hand!

I think it's true because there is a One Punch Man, but there is no One Punch Woman. The evidence is clear.

Dried pineapple is awesome too.

Oh, you mean like dried papaya. Yes. Freezing wouldn't accomplish that.

It's like dried water; really useful, except for the slight drawback that it can't possibly exist. — unenlightened

It's ice, isn't it?

'Cause you posted too many silly ones. :P

It's hard to explain. It's a Russian thing.