It's about how math emerged onto the world stage solely by virtue of our attribution of specific non-negotiable meaning to certain marks and quantities and how that evolved into also talking about non physical things with meaningful marks...
— creativesoul

Quantities, i.e. numbers, are not even needed for inadvertently dragging in an entire bureaucracy of verifiable formalisms, rules and regulations: — alcontali

The topic is meaning. The contention is whether or not math is meaningful. You've argued in the negative. I'm arguing in the affirmative.

Numbers reference quantities. Numbers name specific amounts. Numbers are the meaningful marks that we use to count things. Math and all of it's rules are existentially dependent upon language. Talking about language happens in the following three ways.

We are talking about a.)that which is already meaningful prior to our talking(all who are learning the rules of math/language), b.)that which is as a result thereof(as in the case of talking about that the rules that we stipulate), and c.)that which exists prior to our language itself.

All meaning is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. There are no exceptions.

Numbers are meaningful because they are mathematical symbols and all symbols become meaningful by virtue of being part of a mental correlation drawn by a creature capable of basic thought/belief formation. Without numbers and quantities, there could be no counting. All math is existentially dependent upon arithmetic.

To further make my own case, mathematics emerged onto the world stage via human thought/belief. Math is language. Language is meaningful. Math is symbol. Symbol is meaninfull. Math is measuring. Measuring is meaningful.

Math is meaningful.

It's not about good/bad. It's about what all attribution of meaning takes. It's about what being meaningful takes.

It's about how math emerged onto the world stage solely by virtue of our attribution of specific non-negotiable meaning to certain marks and quantities and how that evolved into also talking about non physical things with meaningful marks...

The similarities between math and natural languages are many, but it seems you've neglected to take those into account.

It seems the ad hom charge does stick...



:wink:

I think that you're mistaken on several levels here.

There are many meaningful terms within the defining vocabulary of natural languages that do not have a real world physical referent.

Natural language does much more than convey meaning. I may even argue against that on it's face.

Structuring meaning is not equivalent to being meaningless.

Terminals are language constructs. Symbols are meaningful in exactly the way I've set out here. That's the difference between accidental marks and symbols.

I would not doubt if current convention agrees wholeheartedly with everything you've written, although some of it seems dubitable. I'm not an expert in maths. Hell, I'm not even at a novice level. That said, to say that mathematics is meaningless given it's historical evolution through time through people, is suspect to say the least.

Given that mathematical symbols are meaningful to those who know how to use the language, I find the claim that math is meaningless to be entirely untenable, unexplainable, and contrary to known facts.

Revisit the ancient texts thread.

Point out to me where you have discussed any impact of die Kehre on analysis of 'meaning'... — fresco

Evidently we've two different ideas regarding what it takes for one position to effectively exhaust another... It's a matter of explanatory power.

Offer an example, any example, of meaning that does not consist of what I've already set out. Heiddy invented all these new language games as a result of not understanding how all thought/belief works. He did not clearly delineate between thought/belief that is prior to language, pre-reflective thought/belief in linguistic form, and reflective thought/belief in linguistic form.

Simply put, he did not draw and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Being, Dasein, Being in the world, ready at hand, etc, all of those notions are the result of not getting thought/belief right to start with.

He was not alone.

Get that wrong, and you'll certainly get meaning wrong as well.

Are symbols meaningless?
— creativesoul

If a symbol is a nonterminal... — alcontali

Is being nonterminal equivalent to being meaningless?

Are symbols meaningless?

A belief that is not a proposition would be something like an expectation. Sort of like a sense that there is a natural law that one never has articulated. But I think any belief would have a propositional counterpart. One could put it in a proposition. In fact with troublesome beliefs that the person in question has not formulated in an proposition, I think it is a good thing to try to 'put it into words' because that makes it easier to notice, to notice the effects of it, to test it, to challenge it, to begin the process of no longer having it. For example. — Coben

Nice.

Expectation is the result of forming and re-forming thought/belief. Hume's bit on the so-called fallacy of induction, if taken to heart by one who does not know better, leads one to think/believe that that which all thought/belief is existentially dependent upon is somehow unacceptable/fallacious.

Acknowledging the possibility for unforeseen events does not render a belief which keeps them in mind unjustified and/or fallacious. Causality requires consistency. When one discovers a causal relationship, it requires doing what Hume calls a problem. When one misattributes a casual relationship, there is a problem, but it's not the problem of all induction. Rather, it's the problem with a misattribution of causality.

The Problem of Induction stems from Hume's ignorance regarding thought/belief itself. He does mention expectation in his Enquiry - in passing. He also readily admits of struggling with belief. Indeed he did and the consequences are shown in his work. Too bad so many centuries have passed without someone else noticing.

The accepted personification pervading some of this thread's discussion about things that have no thought/belief baffles me. As if a plurality were capable of abstracting things away...

You know where I stand on ancient texts.

Having recently joined this forum seeking a more contemporary approach to 'philosophy', I am somewhat disappointed in what I find.

On the specific issue of 'meaning', where, I ask, (following die Kehre ), is the discussion of Wittgenstein's adage 'meaning is use' ? Where I ask is discussion of the major shift to nonrepresentationalism in language ?...or where is Derrida's point that 'meaning' even for the author of text, dynamically shifts ? (merely dismissing that 'Derrida' on this won't do !).

Hence my accusation of 'dancing' (or as Wittgenstein might have called it, Geschwätz) — fresco

Interesting that you find what I've put forth as incompatible with those views. By my lights it exhausts them and the older notions alike.

Well we can obviously address different senses of 'meaning', without having to be concerned over whether we have covered every possible sense of the term. — Janus

We can.

You're leading that dance.

What does Hegal mean when he talks about "desein? — T Clark

Hegel or Heiddy? Dasein or desein? What do you mean here?

:wink:

And that's the frustration of not having defined "meaning" back at the beginning. — T Clark

It's been adequately defined since. Does that not matter here? Does that change not alter the degree of frustration you had prior to it?

Not at all. We're accounting for it wrong.

I would disagree with the claim that only words have meaning.
— creativesoul

Would you argue that any form of representation has meaning (including art, photographs, etc.)? What about a door? When I see a door, I know I can potentially open it and walk through it. Does a door have meaning? Or, what about my Grandfather’s burial flag? It might have meaning to me that it doesn’t for others. What about that? — Noah Te Stroete

I would argue that all representation is meaningful. How it becomes and continues to be meaningful is set out in the OP. We could get into that farther in you like.

The language use matters here.

Is a door meaningful? That all depends. If it's the only door at the end of the universe and there are no creatures alive that draw correlations between that door and something else... then no, it's not, because it does not have what it takes to be.

Your grandfather's burial flag is *precisely* as meaningful(to you) as each and every correlation between it and something else that you've drawn.

A wonderfully tasty ego boost called "personal attack" gets the rhetorical palate juiced up and ready to go.
— creativesoul

Delusions of persecution? Sorry, couldn’t resist. — Noah Te Stroete

Well played. I realized that that ad hom charge may not have stuck after I posted.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, although I was also whining in frustration that poor definition of terms has made this discussion less productive than it could have been.
— T Clark

Agreed. — Noah Te Stroete

An odd agreement given that I've offered an adequate criterion(definition if you like) for all meaning.

You can get into whatever you like as long as it's relevance to meaning is clearly stated. On an aside, I deny knowledge of future events altogether. That is a consequence of knowing what sorts of things can be true(correspond to what's happened and/or is happening) and what makes them so.

I would disagree with the claim that only words have meaning.

One can be both certain and wrong.

If knowledge was equivalent to 'degree of confidence in the results of potential action', all knowledge would require thinking in terms of potential and/or logical possibility. Not all knowledge does. Some(to put it lightly) knowledge is about what's already happened, and/or is currently happening and not about what may.

Thus, knowledge is not equivalent to 'degree of confidence in the results of potential action'.

Some belief rides alongside...

Don't drink the water...

The bootstrap analogy is old and tired. We can use language as a means for knowing about all sorts of stuff that is not existentially dependent upon language. Thought/belief is one of them.

There are no examples to the contrary. — creativesoul

Got one?

I want you to feast your eyes upon a wonderful three course dinner. A wonderfully tasty ego boost called "personal attack" gets the rhetorical palate juiced up and ready to go.

Onward to the next course...

What's a tasty ad hom without the healthy effects/affects of non-fat non sequitur yogurt?

Oh, let me tell you, the two make an unmistakeable well good for poisoning. Don't drink from that well.

, Thomas Aquinas distinguishes three degrees of abstraction as fundamental to the difference between physical science, mathematics and metaphysics. — Dfpolis

By definition none the less.

I agree with most of this, but "constituents of thought" bothers me. While we often reify ideas, it seems to me that the idea <apple> is simply the act of thinking of apples, not thing that can have constituent parts. — Dfpolis

Thinking of apples...

What are the requirements, the necessary pre-requisites, the sufficient pre-conditions...

What must also be the case in order for that to be?

What is the act of thinking existentially dependent upon?

That's a step in the direction of necessary elemental constituents.

A definition of "meaning" is - I suppose - what you're seeking from me. Fair request.

The best I can offer is what all attribution of meaning consists of and/or requires. According to current convention, all theories of meaning presuppose symbolism.

So...

At a bare minimum, all attribution of meaning(all meaning) requires something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing a mental correlation, association, and/or connection between the two.

There are no examples to the contrary.

Math is not about quantities... — alcontali

What is math about then, if not quantities?

Being devoid of semantics is being devoid of theory of meaning, it is not being devoid of meaning.

That's just not true...

Math is clearly meaningful. Arriving at a conclusion that says otherwise just shows how far off the rails one's thought/belief can go if they begin with a gross misunderstanding. Math is not only meaningful, it is rigidly so. Numbers name quantities. Symbols are meaningful.

Some things exist prior to language. Math isn't one. It is a language.

Republican elected officials act more like bots than people. It is quite clear that they are all on the same page. I wonder who writes that script?

Tried copy/paste the url. No can do. Tried what you just suggested. Same result.

For whatever reason(ancient corrupted laptop) I cannot access the links you've been providing. Could you provide germane excerpts? I'm curious to see the language use regarding trade, assuming it's discussed.

That's no surprise to me. Don't take that the wrong way. It wasn't about you, so much as it was about me.

What's muddled or confusing for you?

...and you think/believe that I've not?

Or one sense that covers/exhausts them all...

:wink:

The domestic/foreign trade relation issues apply to more than just the US.

An elected official in a republican form of government such as the one that the United States of America has, has the sole primary responsibility of acting on behalf of those who elected him/her/them. That is the promise one(candidate) makes to another(citizen/voter being represented) who gives them power to do so, by consent. That is the elected official's contractual obligation, first and foremost:Acting on behalf of those who elected him/her/them.

To stem future misguided thought...

All governments ought share this same responsibility to it's citizens. All of the world's citizens deserve to have government made up of the best representation:Thoughtful, considered, knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful representation of their best interests.

That said...

The disproportionate demonstrable harm caused to American industry, lives, and livelihoods is clear. These consequences were not inevitable negative affects/effects of necessary 'trade policy' enacted on behalf of the average American. To quite the contrary, they were not necessary at all.

To stem future misguided thought...

Imported goods are not something to be avoided at all costs. They're not 'bad' in and of themselves. It's all about the method of implementation. The complaint I'm levying, that is.

Imported goods were allowed in the American marketplace. Not an issue - in and of itself. Great idea. How it is implemented is what matters most.

Claims of American Corporations not being able to compete with foreign companies are/were very well-grounded. This becomes undeniably obvious to anyone who compares/contrasts the following two scenarios. All else being equal, the one corporation does all it's manufacturing offshore in places where most - if not all - of American regulations are non-existent. This doesn't make regulations bad. They are necessary and were put into place for good reason. They are often and always ought be kept in place - especially and particularly when they work - as a means to ensure that the government does not have to step in on behalf of it's citizens yet again.

So, all else being equal...

Given products of comparable quality, but actual company costs that do not reflect American standards of living(wages, benefits, worker's rights and protections, etc.) the situation is such that if profit and/or competitive drive is/are the primary motive(s), these foreign companies could bankrupt the American companies and not just by having such a better product(although there are many cases). Rather, even in the cases where the quality is on par, by the ability to intentionally sell - to Americans nonetheless - at a retail cost that the American company cannot continue to operate at, the impending ruin of American industry was inevitable.

To compete, many companies downsized, began lean manufacturing practices, reduced worker pay, deferred much of the financial burden of healthcare onto the workers, etc. Suddenly faced with being required to trim costs by significant sums, there were also retirement benefits to uphold, including healthcare of retirees, and needed improvements in technology as well as facilities. These latest considerations were already there, prior to also being forced to compete with another company that plays by rules long since deemed unacceptable and/or illegal in the States.

The fix?

Trade policies were enacted allowing American owned companies to compete by avoiding American regulations, avoiding paying workers by fair American standards, and as an added bonus legally defer paying certain federal income taxes. That was the solution. These allowances were afforded to American corporations as a means to level the playing field(allow them to be more competitive with the aforementioned foreign companies) in the American marketplace.

So, given this we have no choice but to see it for what it was. Policy created impossibility. Rather than correct the problem by demanding equally humane conditions be provided for foreign workers; rather than demanding that foreign governments guarantee the same qualities, standards, and protections for their workers; rather than demanding that those people's lives be improved as a pre-requisite to being able to take part in the American marketplace; rather than doing all these sensible humane things...

We allowed our companies and our corporations to leave American citizens high and dry and treat foreign workers and foreign lands in unacceptable illegal ways if we were talking about how to treat American workers and American lands. Double standard doesn't even begin to describe this greed based hypocritical action.

All the while... there was talk of 'raising standards around the world', being a global citizen, increasing American access to cheaper goods, etc. The blame for large American companies closing was two-fold. First there arose a common belief that imports were better, and that the poor quality of American products was a result - either direct or indirect - of the American worker themselves. They were characterized as being lazy/careless or too expensive for the company to keep and keep the quality up. The cost of American workers was widely believed to be the driving force behind companies beginning to use cheaper(inferior quality) materials.

American workers are more expensive than those foreign workers. That was never in doubt, was it? That is not the only driving force behind the collapse of American Industry. That's not the whole story. Those companies also faced costs of benefits to retirees. Upgrading. Healthcare costs increasing, etc. Normal operating costs.

So we fix the results of policy that allowed such unacceptable practices(ilegal in the States) to create an impossible marketplace for American Industry by virtue of allowing American companies to treat those people, and that land in ways that are unacceptable/illegal in America?

That's the fix?


And then there's the cost of American healthcare, and I'm not just talking about individual consumer price for some policy or another. I'm talking about the pharmaceutical industry. The healthcare costs for companies were influenced/effected here as well.

The tragedy here is that Americans - most anyway - either don't seem to know these things or are comfortable enough to remain compliant.

Trump's not the problem. He is a symptom.