How do you know the difference without getting at my intent? Was I misspeaking or lying?

He does have to know about the weather to know if the person used words incorrectly or not. That was your argument - that the speaker was only wrong because it wasn't raining outside. If the listener already knew the weather, then telling them would be redundant. I can say it is sunny or simply point to the window.

You completely skipped this part (intentionally or no?):

Saying, "It is raining" or "It is sunny" are the correct use of words. You only say that they are incorrect when the words don't refer to the actual state-of-affairs of the weather outside. The listener would never know I misspoke until they went outside. Then they would be left thinking what I intended with my words. Was I joking, lying, or did I misspeak? — Harry Hindu

A word employed in a particular language game may be used once in a particular way, and for whatever, totally contingent reason never be used that way ever again by anyone else living or dead, and it would still fall under the rubric of 'meaning-as-use'. — StreetlightX

So when someone "misuses" a word and someone corrects them, and it is no longer used that way again, then that would still fall under the rubric of meaning as use, which is to say that that person didn't really misuse the word. You only know that they misused a word when you understand what they intended. They could have been using a metaphor, or been joking. You need to get at their intent to know the difference between them making a mistake or them joking.

But In the example that I gave they were intentional.

Let me change it slightly. Imagine someone who doesn't speak English very well, and he utters the sentence "it is raining", while intending to say that it is sunny, because for some reason he believes that this is how you say that it is sunny in English. You cannot say that he was insincere or lying, or using a metaphor, or telling a joke etc; he had the intention to mean something different from what his words in fact mean. How do you explain this? — Fafner

Then you are no longer arguing for meaning is use. You are arguing that meaning is what a word refers to, which aren't other words. Saying, "It is raining" or "It is sunny" are the correct use of words. You only say that they are incorrect when the words don't refer to the actual state-of-affairs of the weather outside. The listener would never know I misspoke until they went outside. Then they would be left thinking what I intended with my words. Was I joking, lying, or did I misspeak?

You don't seem to understand the contradictory nature of your own position. If one uses "raining" to mean, "sunny" as a joke or a lie, then that would be a conventional use of the word, which then makes it the correct use of the word for the person who "misspeaks". In other words, you can't say that they used words incorrectly. The only way you can get at the distinction between using a word in a way that isn't conventionally used and it mean something and using a word that is conventionally used and it not mean something is by applying one's intention in speaking. Did they intend to say what they said, or no?

The fact is that we can adapt to other people's use of words. If someone uses a word "incorrectly" to express their intent, and no one "corrects" them and they continue to use the word "incorrectly", then you will understand what they mean, and that becomes the conventional use of the word, at least between that pair of speaker and listener.

StreelightX has said we can use any scribble or sound to refer to anything we want. A scribble or sound is "convetionizable." It is up to the listener to get at the intent for the use of the word. There are basically no rules for language in this sense. You can use a scribble or sound for anything and it becomes conventional only after repetitive use, and only after repetitive use do we understand what it is the word means. Does it matter how many people use the word in that way if just one person understands what they meant?

But what makes it the case the certain words match your intention, and others don't? Obviously what they mean. But what explains their meaning? It cannot be your intention, since the meaning of your words can diverge from your intention, so it is false that meaning=intention. Get it? — Fafner

The meaning of my words only diverge from my intention when I misspeak, which is to say that my words were unintentional.

When lying, or using metaphors, or inside jokes, I am "misusing" words intentionally (I could really say that I used words as it makes no sense to say that I misused something intentionally). What makes it the case that certain words match my intention? That my intent preceded the use of words.

Mm, the 'use' in 'meaning-as-use' has never referred to 'conventional use' but 'use in a language game' - and to be in a language game is to be not 'conventional', but to be 'conventializable' - to be, in principle, the kind of thing that can be used conventionally, even if it never, in fact, becomes conventially used. A word employed in a particular language game may be used once in a particular way, and for whatever, totally contingent reason never be used that way ever again by anyone else living or dead, and it would still fall under the rubric of 'meaning-as-use'. — StreetlightX

This sounds awfully close to defining "use" as simply making sounds and writing scribbles. If any scribble or sound can mean anything at anytime, then use would simply making scribbles or sounds to refer to anything. Any scribble or sound is "conventionizable".

"Conventionizable" isn't even a word. You simply made up a new string of scribbles and ascribed it a meaning via your intent. Most of us knew that you really meant (intended) "conventionalized", which is a word. When there are other words that already have the meaning you intend, then making up a new string of scribbles to mean the same thing would be redundant and makes language more complex and confusing.

So do you want to say something like "meaning of a sentence=intent"? If so, then I think it is very implausible that intending something by a sentence is sufficient to make it mean what you intend.

For example, can you intend to mean that it is sunny outside by the sentence "it is raining"? Suppose someone asks you what is the whether outside, and you answer "it is raining" while intending to convey to him that it is sunny; would you say that you've told a lie or the truth? (and suppose that it is indeed sunny outside). It seems to me that in this example, what you really intend has little to do with the meaning of the sentence that you are using, on a pretty intuitive notion of "meaning".

I think the moral from this story is that for a sentence to mean something that you intend, it must be (in some sense) appropriate to use that sentence to say this particular thing. And what makes it appropriate to use a sentence such as "it is raining" on certain circumstances and not some others, is not decided solely by what one intends. Therefore intention by itself doesn't look like a plausible explanation of linguistic meaning. — Fafner

If it is sunny outside and I intend to convey information that it is sunny outside, then I would say, "it is sunny outside". I used words that match my intentions. If I never intended to convey that information, I would have never used words at all.

If I intended to convey information that it is sunny outside, and I said, "it is raining outside", then my words wouldn't match my intention, which means I misspoke, or I didn't use words correctly.

If I intended to convey information that it is sunny outside while it is actually raining, then that means that I intend to lie - to use words in a way that matches my intentions.

In lying, I could have said, "it is snowing", or anything else, other than "it is raining". In so doing, I used words that match my intentions, not how it is appropriate to use those words to say a particular thing.

In both lying and misspeaking, I am not using words that is appropriate to use those words to say a particular thing. The difference comes from intent. I can intend to lie, but I don't intend to misspeak. Intending to misspeak is lying.

But what does that have to do with the meaning of the word? You might intend for me to turn left, and this might cause you to say "turn right" – but as you've admitted, this would be the wrong thing to say, given that "turn right" doesn't mean "turn left". So the meaning of the word "right" has nothing to do with your intent or its causal relationship to the actual utterance – your intent can cause you to say the wrong word (and it's still the wrong word even if the person you're speaking too recognises that you've misspoken and correctly infers your intent). — Michael

Then you are no longer arguing for meaning is use. You are now arguing that meaning is what a symbol refers to.

You're taking the term "conventional" too literally. I only brought it up to address your claim that if meaning is use then you can simply utter any sounds you like and, given that you've used them, they must have a meaning. That's not what Wittgenstein means by "meaning is use". "Use" isn't synonymous here with "utterance". It's closer to "function". The meaning of a word is its function or role in the language-game – which may be a language-game involving only a small number of people. — Michael

LOL. Now I'm taking a conventional use of the word "conventional" to literally. Then you meant (intended) something else with your use of "conventional".

Also, virtually every dictionary defines "meaning" as "what is intended". So to say that dictionaries don't exhaust every use of a word is preposterous. It is what we use we we want to know what a word means, or what it refers to so that we can use those words to express our intent, or our ideas.

The information you intend to convey dictates the words you use? Yes, or no?

Then you are no longer arguing for meaning is use. You are now arguing that meaning is what a symbol refers to.

If the dictionary doesn't provide an exhaustive account, then how does the conventional use of a term provide an exhaustive account? I can use the term in any way the dictionary doesn't describe then, and as long as someone else understands what I mean, I have successfully used the word in a way that is unconventional. This is how metaphors start. It is an unconventional use of the word that eventually becomes conventional, but only after users understand the new way it is used, or what it refers to, or what it means. So you have the problem of explaining how unconventional uses of words DO have meaning prior to them becoming a conventional (common) use of the word.

How did any word get it's meaning? One person had to make a sound or a scribble and then persuade others to use the sound and scribble in the same way. Before the majority used the sound/scribble to refer to something, it had a meaning, and it wasn't it's conventional use because only one person used it that way. It was what the word refers to.

When I talk about meaning referring to intent, I'm talking about causation. Your intent is the cause of your use of words. If you had no intent to convey information, then would you use words? Yes, or no? and the information you intend to convey dictates the words you use? Yes, or no?

Given that using the word "meaning" in the context of talking about value, as in "my girlfriend means a lot to me", is a conventional use of the term, clearly Merriam-Webster doesn't provide an exhaustive account of the word "meaning".

Dictionaries aren't the authority. The actual ways we communicate are the authority. — Michael

Then dictionaries are useless? I'm not sure how much further we can carry on here if that is what you really think.

Another problem you have is that another conventional use of the word, "meaning" is, "I looked up the word in the dictionary to find it's meaning." If people use the word, "meaning" in a conventional way to refer to the dictionary as providing meaning for words, then the conventional use of the word, "meaning" in this sense contradicts you saying that dictionaries don't provide the conventional use of words. People use, "meaning" to refer to the dictionary as providing the conventional use of words.

Earlier in this thread, Fafner said,

What dictionaries do is to replace words which the speaker doesn't know their conventional use, with words that the speaker does know how to use, because if he didn't then the dictionary would be completely useless to him. — Fafner

Fafner seems to agree that dictionaries provide the conventional use of words and both of you are making the same "meaning-is-use" argument. Maybe you two should figure out what dictionaries are for before you and I can continue our discussion.

It is true that dictionaries don't provide an exhaustive account of how every words is used. Dictionaries don't provide metaphorical uses of the words. It is possible that the misuse of words takes hold in the population and the general population begins using those terms in that way, but this is no different than someone saying something that isn't true and that falsehood gets spread around and treated as if it were truth in the general population. The misuse of words can be spread around the same way. What you have to explain is how the single misuse of a word becomes the conventional use of the word.

Another issue is that once we have several meanings for a word, we no longer have a conventional use of the word. The word now has several conventional uses, and what is to stop if from acquiring more to the point of there being no conventional use of the word? The questions you need to answer are are:
How many people must use the word in the new way for it to become "conventional"?
How many different meanings must a word acquire before it no longer has a conventional use?

What does "the relationship between cause and effect" even mean? — Michael

The same thing as the relationship between you and your mother, the same as the relationship between you studying for an exam and getting an A on the exam, the same as the relationship between your intent to convey information and the words that come from your mouth.

And how does this account for the situation where I intend for you to turn left but instead say "turn right"? Or the case of Del Boy thinking that "au revoir" is French for "hello"? The meaning of the terms has nothing to do with the speaker's intention at all. — Michael

You once said that I'm conflating meaning with intent. It is you that is conflating meaning with the conventional use of words. The way you are using meaning here is to make a distinction between what the scribbles or sounds "left" and "right" refer to. What the words refer to is what they mean, and if I intend to convey for you to turn right instead of left, then 1) I had better know what word refers to which direction if I'm to convey my intent correctly. and 2) I need to know that the listener understands what the words refer to as well, or else I fail to accomplish my goal. This is no different than having the goal to build a house and having an understanding of how to use the tools to build a house, in order to accomplish the goal of building a house. The conventional use of the tools isn't the meaning. It is the intent of building a house that is the meaning of me using those tools. What is it that you intend in using those tools (those words)?

But do you agree that the sentence 'the leaves are green' has different meanings in the two different examples? — Fafner

Of course, but how does the same string of symbols mean different things? You're saying it is because of context. I'm saying it is the information one intends to convey. Is one talking about the paint or photosynthesis? It depends on what the speaker intends to convey.

Of course there is intent in the example, but the point is that what one can 'intend' to mean is constrained by the context of the utterance, that is, the purpose for which it is used (in other words, the words that you use plus the context provide you different possible 'meanings' for the sentence to choose from). — Fafner

It is constrained by the information you intend to convey. "Purpose" is the goal you intend to accomplish. So you can say that it is constrained by your intent. Your intent is what chooses the words to say in order to convey the right information in order to accomplish your goal. — Harry Hindu

So are you disagreeing with me? I'm not sure what is your objection (if you have any) to the argument about the leaves. — Fafner

What I'm disagreeing with is your circular reasoning. You said, "the point is that what one can 'intend' to mean is constrained by the purpose for which it is used". I pointed out that "purpose" is equivalent to intent. The purpose of saying what you said is dependent upon the information you intend to convey. So what you are really saying is, "the point is that what one can 'intend' to mean is constrained by the intent (or goal) for which it is used. If the goal is to convey that the leaves are painted green, then that is what you mean. If the goal is to convey that the leaves process the energy of the sun in such a way that makes them green, then that is what you mean.

Of course there is intent in the example, but the point is that what one can 'intend' to mean is constrained by the context of the utterance, that is, the purpose for which it is used (in other words, the words that you use plus the context provide you different possible 'meanings' for the sentence to choose from). — Fafner

It is constrained by the information you intend to convey. "Purpose" is the goal you intend to accomplish. So you can say that it is constrained by your intent. Your intent is what chooses the words to say in order to convey the right information in order to accomplish your goal.

There's a neat argument by Charles Travis that I think illustrates quite well what was meant by Wittgenstein when he said "meaning is use", and it also shows that the traditional view of meaning is mistaken (like that a word means that which it stands for or refers to etc.). — Fafner

How convenient. Meaning is use where "use" is the conventional, or traditional, use of a word, EXCEPT for the term, "meaning". I can use that term how I want and say that the conventional use of the term as provided by Merriam-Webster is wrong.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning

"Meaning", according to Merriam-Webster (which shows the conventional/traditional use of words), has to do with intent. To use it any other way (like meaning is use) would be a misuse of the term, "meaning".

Travis gives an example of a sentence that can be used in one context to say something true and in another context to say something false about the very same object. And so if Travis' example is convincing, then it shows that the meaning we associate with each word in a sentence (whatever it is) is not sufficient to determine the meaning or content of the whole sentence on the occasion of utterance (and by 'content' Travis means truth-evaluable content, i.e. that which determines the truth conditions for the sentence).

Suppose we utter the sentence "the leaves are green", and point to a bunch of dead brown leaves that have been painted green. Is the sentence true or false? It depends according to Travis on the purpose for which we use the sentence: if we are interested in the superficial color of the leaves, then we would be saying something true when we use the sentence, whereas if we are, say, interested in botany then we would say that the same sentence is false (or imagine a cease of brown leaves that are lit by intense green light, or leaves that glow green in the dark and so on).

So the moral is this: whatever 'meaning' we associate with the sentence or any of the words of which it is composed, it doesn't determine in advance what the sentence means on a particular occasion of use. Knowing what 'leaves' and 'green' mean doesn't by itself tell you how to use the sentence when you talk about some particular leaves, because you have countless options to choose from. The sentence can have a determined meaning (i.e. to say something concrete about the leaves) only if we have a clear purpose in mind for which we want to use the sentence on a given occasion. — Fafner

Then what you mean is what you intend to convey. Do you intend to convey that the leaves are green because they are painted or that they are green because of photosynthesis? What did you intend to convey?

Whatever it means in the context of "the meaning of a word". According to Wittgenstein, and probably other philosophers, it would be wrong to interpret this as "the intention of a word".

Also whatever it means in the context of "my girlfriend means a lot to me". It would be wrong to interpret this as "my girlfriend intends a lot to me".

Or whatever it means in the context of "if the grass is wet then it means that it rained earlier". It would be wrong to interpret this as "if the grass is wet then it intends that it rained earlier"

And any other contexts in which the word "mean" isn't synonymous with "intend". — Michael

Let me make this simple for you. Say I agree with you that meaning is use and by "use" we both mean the conventional use of the word. When I go and look up the conventional use of the word, "meaning", it doesn't say anything about use. It mentions intent. So, if the meaning is tied to the conventional use of a word, then all these other "uses" of "meaning" you have just provided would be a misuse of the term, precisely because it isn't part of the definition. So either you or Merriam-Webster is wrong. If Merriam-Webster is wrong, then you are wrong as well in saying that meaning is the conventional use of the word because Merriam-Webster is providing you the conventional use of the word, "meaning" yet you deny that is the conventional use. Your whole argument defeats itself.

To say, "my girlfriend means a lot to me" is to say that I value my girlfriend. Value isn't part of the conventional use of the word, "meaning" and so it would be a misuse of the word.

As I have said, numerous times, meaning is the relationship between the effect and it's cause. I'm not saying that the meaning IS the intent. It is the relationship between cause and effect - the relationship between your intent to convey something and the use of the word. That is what the meaning if a word is. This allows us to use the term, "meaning" in referring to rain causing the ground to be wet. The ground being wet means it rained earlier. It's all about causation.

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?

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.

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".

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 way you posed the question seems to ask if there is purpose to one's death, which is also asking about causation - just reverse causation. You are asking if something in the future causes death. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you mean. — TheMadFool

What I mean is that, if you are asking if death has a purpose then you are

1) implying determinism

and

2) implying that events in the future are what imbue death with meaning (like death being a "door" you have to go through in order to continue your existence in a different form beyond death).

Does Death Have A Meaning?

Go ask the meaning-is-use crowd. They'd say that the meaning of death is it's use.

I say that meaning is a causal relationship. To ask what the meaning of something is, is to ask about causation.

The way you posed the question seems to ask if there is purpose to one's death, which is also asking about causation - just reverse causation. You are asking if something in the future causes death.

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.

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?

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).

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?

I do not deny the existence of a world-in-itself. Surely, trees, dogs, rivers, mountains, planets, solar systems and stars would exist regardless of whether humans were here to experience them.
What I deny is that such a world is philosophically relevant, because such a world, in principle, cannot be experienced. The world-in-itself exists, but it is not "like" anything. It just is. — Brian

But it is experienced. How can you even say those things exist if you don't experience them? You (and your experience of it) is all part of the "world-in-itself".

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it. — Brian

I wouldn't use the word, "world-for-us". There is simply the world and our experience of it. How would you explain how the two "worlds" interact? How is there a causal relationship between the world and our experience of it? Wouldn't all causal relations be part of the world as it is?

I take this view to be an essential tenet of traditional phenomenology. The goal of phenomenology is to describe the only world that can ever be experienced, the world-for-us. — Brian

You seem to be confusing terms. The world-for-us would be the experience. How can you even say an experience is happening if you aren't implying that it is an experience of something that isn't the experience? What you are arguing for is basically solipsism.

The world-in-itself, like the Kantian thing-in-itself exists - there would still be entities if there were nobody to experience them. But they wouldn't be like anything in particular, because because like something requires experience of those things. They would just be there, exist, as pure being. And there's nothing else to know about such a world physically, other than that it is coherent and exists. — Brian

Then how would you make distinctions between entities? How would there even be separate, or other entities if they didn't occupy separate points in space?

The goal of philosophy is not to see through appearance to get to the world in itself, but to immerse yourself in mastering the world-for-us, the only world we ever have any access to. — Brian

The only way to master the "world-for-us" is to establish correlations between our experience and the the "world-in-itself". Any other way makes no sense and causes confusion.

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.

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.

That wasn't a straw-man. I'm simply asking you to follow through with the implications of what you believe. Act on your beliefs if you actually believe them. If this is what you believe, then free all the murderers for ending the suffering of their "victims", and make them heroes.

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?

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?

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?

If any of this were true, then we'd have to revamp our ethics and convict our parents, not the others who actually cause us suffering, for our suffering. We'd be putting our parents in prison rather than those that actually caused us suffering. Your parents would be in prison instead of the the thief or cheat that caused your suffering.

The fact is that I don't blame my parents as the source of my suffering. I blame those that cause my suffering. If that is how you feel then grow a set and go blame your parents for all the suffering you ever experienced and tell them you're going to sue them for the suffering you experience in life. In other words, be consistent in your philosophical worldview and put your money where your mouth is.

What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are.

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 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.

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.

Probably one of the things about philosophy that motivates some people to chastise it as stupid is how nothing seems to be set-in-stone. Now of course this is, in my opinion, one of the greatest assets of philosophy, and it's also just untrue that other disciplines are not the same. But people want facts - and a philosophy department does not provide "facts" all too often unless it's historical. In philosophy, there is almost universal disagreement on key issues and this can be interpreted as a failure of philosophy, when in fact it's simply evidence of the difficulty of these questions. — darthbarracuda

Many people on this forum quote long-dead philosophers as if they were prophets - as if what these long-dead philosophers wrote or said is above criticism (set in stone).

How do we know that there was no "time" before the Big Bang? Modern scientists are talking about what happened before the Big Bang, and how the Big Bang occurred. If anything happens before or after the Big Bang, "time" continues to exist, as "time" is simply relative change.

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).

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