The term "proposition" does not belong here. My position will show you what's wrong with the notion itself. It will also show you What's Really Going On With Gettier....

All of that is for another thread. This one deals with my position. My position is set out on my terms. "Proposition" is your term, not mine. Explain it's relevance.

If no one understands it then the meaning is lost. What is your point? This is obvious? — I like sushi

My point - once again - is that you are presupposing something to be lost.

I do not.

I argue for my position.

Another point is that you refuse to address any argument in lieu of serving up fish. We Iike 'em raw.

You're arguing with yourself, and the idiot over your shoulder is distracting your thought. Click on my avatar. Clink on comments. Read my arguments. Address my arguments.

There are texts that no living person knows how to read. They are for us meaningless. If someone were able to decipher the texts, however, then some sense of their meaning would be understood, unless they never had a meaning to begin with. The marks might be practice in writing the letters or words, but a series of letters or words has no coherent meaning as a text. Someone might unwittingly attribute meaning to this, but whoever wrote the marks may have meant no such thing. Or what was written did mean something to the author and its readers, but has come to mean something else. And this might mean different things - misinterpretation, giving significance to things did not have the same significance for the author, meaningful to us because it gives a glimpse into the world of the author. — Fooloso4

The author's world does not amount to your misattribution of meaning to his/her words...

If one misattributes meaning to an author's words, the author's world is not understood.

A dead language is by definition no longer practiced. — Fooloso4

And yet Latin is still used...

You assume that the ancient text is still meaningful despite it's users all having perished. That needs argued for in my book. In yours, evidently not. That's fine by me. However, all you've done is fallen prey to confirmation bias.

The Rosetta Stone is not all problematic for anything I've said here. It fits right in.

Reading a text and looking at marks.

The difference?

Understanding the meaning.

Meaning is a fluid process of seeking continuity in a relationship between various interactions of users and texts. Statements of meaning in a dictionary attempt to ‘shore up’ this sense of continuity from the side of the text, but language and textual meaning does not so much ‘persist’ through time as much as it flows - changing and fluctuating in small, complex ways with each interaction between texts and users. This is why dictionaries need to be regularly updated, and why we cannot even conclude that the meaning of the ancient text ‘persisted’ (without change) throughout the time period during its use. — Possibility

I think we can agree that meaning of the same marks, signs, and symbols changes through time and different use. The scare-quotes are no longer necessary. The meaning of a text is determined by the users of the language. That meaning can persist through time even if there are more than one(accepted in practice) use for the marks, even if the marks are correlated to different things than the original users. The original meaning, however, could not persist if no one correlated the marks to the same things at all. The same holds good of all common use.

Orwell...

The difference in "senses" of a mark is determined by what it is correlated to/with. All this is relevant to misunderstandings between people who use the same marks but do not understand one another.

I'm unsure how this applies to the ancient text, in general. It may have had different meanings throughout it's use. If the last actual users of the text did not draw the same correlations between it and other things, then they themselves would not be using the text to talk about the same things as the original users. While the ancient text could have meant lots of things to different people who used the text, or the language therein, it still seems to be the case that after all the users perished, so too did the all of the correlations drawn between the marks and other things.

I think that meaning must be considered alongside context, as indicated here. The OP focusses tightly on meaning, but does not even mention context. I think this is an oversight that could usefully be corrected. — Pattern-chaser

Just because it has not been mentioned, does not mean it hasn't been accounted for.

Who writes in hieroglyphs? Who writes or speaks in Demotic or any form of ancient Greek? There are a few people who know how to read these languages but no one "uses" them. — Fooloso4

We've been over this already. I gave argument. You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions.

Reading presupposes understanding the meaning of a text. One cannot possibly understand the meaning of a text without using it. One cannot possibly read a text without using it.

All readers of a text are users of it's language.

History means “written” (“histo”). Prehistory refers to the period before written/writing evidence. We know something about the lives of people in the ancient world because they wrote about it. In anthropology the field has suffered during it’s history because people assumed too much about a given culture through the lens of modern eyes with no actual historical evidence using only archeological evidence and inferring from there.

Of course we’re prone to making misleading assumptions about ancient texts too. The point is there is at least a text to work from... — I like sushi

And what exactly can be known based upon the marks alone if there are no users of the language?

There is often an assumption that there is only the meaning of this ancient text, as if a single meaning was somehow inherent in the text itself. But meaning exists in a relationship between observed text and observer/user. It is not inherent in the text, but neither is it separable from either text or observer.

So, if a text is considered ‘meaningful’, are we saying that the text contains meaning, or that there is a meaningful relationship between the ancient text and any modern user? Conversely, if a text is considered to have no meaning, are we saying that it is meaningless, or that there is no meaningful relationship established between the text and the modern user?

For meaning to ‘persist through time’, there must be a sense of continuity perceived in this particular relationship between texts and users through time. Take the word ‘love’ for instance. While there is a sense of continuity between this text and the same word (using the same symbols) written in English for the last five hundred years, the claim that a similar continuity exists between users (readers and writers) of the word ‘love’ over that same five hundred years is much less certain.

Meaning is a fluid process of seeking continuity in a relationship between various interactions of users and texts. Statements of meaning in a dictionary attempt to ‘shore up’ this sense of continuity from the side of the text, but language and textual meaning does not so much ‘persist’ through time as much as it flows - changing and fluctuating in small, complex ways with each interaction between texts and users. This is why dictionaries need to be regularly updated, and why we cannot even conclude that the meaning of the ancient text ‘persisted’ (without change) throughout the time period during its use.

So, is a newly discovered and completely unfamiliar ancient text still meaningful?

Well, it doesn’t have inherent meaning that persists through time, if that’s what you mean by ‘still’. The original meaning of the text exists only in the moment the chisel was put to stone, so to speak. That meaning may have been intended for a particular audience and in response to a particular experience or interaction, all of which may not be apparent in the text or its context (where it was found, etc). Nor can we be certain that the meaning intended was effectively communicated to any user at all. Incidentally, we can find various ways in which modern users can interact with the text in a meaningful way, but this is not ‘the meaning’ you’re looking for, is it?

If our intention is to approach the original intended meaning of the text, then we need to concentrate not just on our interaction with the symbols (whether or not these symbols are still in use), but with the original users of those symbols - to share in the human experience that motivated that particular use of that particular combination of symbols in the context of the user’s particular sum of human experiences up to that point. This is not a purely logical process, nor is it ever going to be conclusive. We can really only imagine the original meaning from our position, and to share our various perspectives on it, towards further developing the complex web of continuity in relationships between texts and users throughout time. — Possibility

Nice. This touches upon everything I've brought into consideration thus far, and sharpened one aspect in particular; the bit about meaning changing over time.

It seems you agree with me.

I thought you were responding to an excerpt of my writing.
— creativesoul

I was. You dismissed the question I asked as not necessary. End of discussion. What else do you want me to say? I thought I was taking part in a discussion, not consulting with the Oracle. — Isaac

You guessed. You asked about the guess. I answered.

I thought you were responding to an excerpt of my writing.

Given that writing things down for future generations makes something “meaningful” to the scholars of the time. — I like sushi

The above does not support anything afterwards. I do agree with the above. Not so much with what followed.

The historical is important. Prehistory is the issue because we tend to assume too much without written evidence/varification. — I like sushi

An ancient text that has no users could be rightfully described as an historical artifact.

Could you flesh out the difference between historical and pre-historical? Seems to me that such problematic assumptions are most certainly not exclusive to "prehistory".

Earlier someone mentioned location...

I wonder why?

Meaning is not the sort of thing that has a spatiotemporal location. Rather, it is a composition of three things; the direct result of drawing mental correlation. The distance between that which becomes sign/symbol, that which becomes significant/symbolized, and the creature connecting the two differs. A language less creature, a fire, and a mental correlation drawn between the behaviour and the ensuing pain.

The fire became meaningful to the creature as a result of the creature making a connection between touching fire and the resulting pain. All three things(the fire, the pain, the creature) are necessary elemental constituents of the correlation itself.

By virtue of drawing the correlation meaning is attributed, rudimentary thought/belief is formed, and correspondence to fact is presupposed.

113 & 114: we feel it must be like this, but we are only looking at the frame.

and the resolution: 115: A picture held us captive. — Banno

The frame - if proper - outlines the language use. The resolution is the complexity of use. Pictures built upon descriptions of that which exists prior to the description are prone to be wrong. The frame is broken, but the resolution is immaculate.

Flies and bottles.

No. I'm guessing you think that has some material effect, so perhaps you could explain how. — Isaac

Re-read the thread...

If the language is still being used it is not meaningless. The notion of material effect is out of place. It is not necessary.

I'd say that the meaning they're performing re fire and pain includes a reference to pain. But I don't think of reference as necessarily linguistic in the sense of having to utter a word. — Terrapin Station

I can't make much sense of the idea of performing meaning.

Does the burn victim need an audience?

Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.”

What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual language structures? — Mww

I'm not familiar with Fodor. I would readily agree that some mental acts are structured by language. I would also say that some mental acts are prior to language acquisition, and therefore cannot be language structures. Language acquisition itself is existentially dependent upon mental acts, so...

I’m of the mind that mental acts are images, and meaning is prior to language, insofar as meaning is merely a judgement on conceptual referents presented to it by reason.

In order for that to be true, judgment on conceptual referents, and reason would all need to exist prior to language. I may agree with a nuanced version of this line of thinking, but it would require redefining judgment and reason. On my view, neither is even possible prior to language.

Some mental acts are images. Not all. Blind people think.

On the other hand, if Fodor is right, meaning won’t be prior to language, at least of the mental variety. Then we’d have to determine if the mental variety is different than the overall objective variety, such that meaning could still be prior to one but simultaneous with or a consequence of the other. — Mww

May I suggest dispensing with the very idea of objective meaning? The subjective/objective dichotomy is utterly incapable of being used to take proper account of that which is both.

Does the fourth word on page 265 of the current Oxford English Dictionary mean anything? I could wager it is not in use right now. It certainly meant something maybe five minutes ago when it was last used. I've no doubt it will mean something in five minute's time when it is next used, but right now no-one in the world is using it. Does that mean it has lost its meaning? — Isaac

Are the language users all dead?

Languages change over time. Someone who can read modern Greek cannot read ancient Greek. In addition, someone who understood Koiné or Hellenistic Greek (the Greek the New Testament is written in) is not likely to have understood Classical or Attic Greek (the Greek Plato and Aristotle wrote in). — Fooloso4

Are you offering support for my argument?

:wink:

We're discussing an ancient text. Ancient texts are examples of language use. It is impossible to understand the language use without knowing the meaning, and vice versa.
— creativesoul

Knowing the meaning of what? The language or a particular text? — Fooloso4

The use. Language use determines meaning.

I agree. That is precisely what needs argued for. Do you have an argument for that claim?
— creativesoul

Why does it need to be argued for? — Fooloso4

It needs argued for because just saying that ancient text is meaningful presupposes precisely what's in contention here. Bald and gratuitous assertions are unacceptable. There is nothing gained between two sides of an argument if neither argues for the position. One says this, the other says that. I'm at least offering an argument. The least you could do is address it, since you have none to support your conclusion. Lot's of people believing that something is the case does not make that something the case.

You may not believe the Rosetta Stone has been deciphered... — Fooloso4

I didn't say that. The Rosetta Stone - when discovered - was written in languages still in use at the time of the discovery. Some people could still understand them. The marks, the referents, and the users were all still extant. That is enough to decipher the bits they did not understand. Three stories about the same things. Two of the three were in known languages. Otherwise, they could not have been read. Reading requires understanding. The ability to translate/decipher the unknown bits came as a result.

Thus, the Rosetta Stone is not an ancient text written in a language that had no users.

In one sense it is meaningful: we know it means something... — jamalrob

Means? As in present tense... still means something?

Do we know that?

That is exactly what my argument refutes. We cannot know it is meaningful if it is not. I know it is not. We know it meant something to the language users. I've argued for all those claims without subsequent due attention. The argument for what all meaning is existentially dependent upon has yet to have addressed. One example to the contrary is all it takes...

Just one.

Symbolism itself is existentially dependent upon the following three things; something to become a sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between the two.

It is imperative to state something here very clearly. Those things which become symbol and symbolized, along with those things which become sign and significant... those things are neither until the correlation is drawn between them.

That is the original attribution and/or creation of meaning. That is how linguistic meaning emerges onto the world stage. There are no examples to the contrary. — creativesoul

An ancient text from a long dead people does not have what it takes to be meaningful. We have the signs, marks, symbols... that's it. The referents may still exist. There is no longer anyone drawing the correlations. There is no way for us to know what they were.

That's a good start.

What is symbolism existentially dependent upon?

Well that didn't take long...

The Rosetta Stone was written in language that is still in use, and was when found. Thus, it is not an example of what I'm talking about. The OP clearly delineates the candidates under consideration...

It is also clear that you've not rightly understood the argument I'm presenting.

Fix your links...

Nevermind. It was on my end... My apologies. Reading the Rosetta Stone link now...

You point to different kinds of meaning. That's no problem. Good to note it actually. Knowing what they all have in common, which makes them all meaning, that is what it takes to address the issue of the ancient text...

What is all linguistic meaning existentially dependent upon? Does that answer hold good for the ancient text? Does it have what it takes? That us the general approach here.

You seem to be confusing meaning and knowledge of the meaning. — Fooloso4

That's an interesting charge given the position I argue for.

To the extent it is possible to understand the meaning of an ancient text that meaning must exist.... — Fooloso4

I agree. That is precisely what needs argued for. Do you have an argument for that claim?

In order to even be able to do that, the meaning of the text would have to be able to persist through time, despite the fact of it's users all having long since perished.
— creativesoul

And that is exactly the case. That is why I pointed it out. — Fooloso4

Gratuitous assertion is unacceptable here. No matter how many times you state it without an argument, it's still needs argued for.

If you know English you do not automatically know the meaning of a particular text written in English. In fact, there may be various interpretations of its meaning. A string of words may or may not have a meaning. Then again, one might impose a meaning on a random string of words.


The point I'm making is that it is impossible to understand the language without knowing the meaning and vice-versa.
— creativesoul

What is the meaning of English? If you know English you can, but may not, understand something written in English but this is not knowing the meaning of English. It is only what is spoken or written in English that has meaning.

You've drawn a distinction between the two, and there is no difference to be had.
— creativesoul

See above. — Fooloso4

Red herring. Try again. Quote me and address my word use.

We're discussing an ancient text. Ancient texts are examples of language use. It is impossible to understand the language use without knowing the meaning, and vice versa.

That's a sharper version, so to speak.

There are some other things you said that warrant further discussion...

Offering Ayn Rand as an example of an admirable women is... well... ummm... errrr...

:yikes:

Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language. Thus, not all meaning involves reference. That said, I'm not sure what Purple Pond is saying here, because there are all sorts of things that are understandable that are not meaningful... until after they're understood.

One can understand that touching fire causes pain even if the one in question is language less. Meaning is attributed within the experience. The creature draws a correlation between it's behaviour and what happened immediately afterwards, The creature learned something, and by doing so, attributed meaning to the act and the fire. The fire became meaningful and/or significant to the creature after the connection was made between touching it and the pain that ensued. The creature attributed/recognized causality.

So, not all meaning involves reference, and not all understanding is of something that is already meaningful.

Indeed.

Here's a question...

Upon what ground does one claim to have deciphered an ancient language into our own? Furthermore, even if one can convince others that it is possible, and plenty of people have... what could anyone possibly use as a means for checking to see if the 'translation'(scare-quotes intentional) is correct?

Think about what it takes to do that with two currently used languages. There is no reason to believe that translating an ancient text requires anything less. Deciphering is translating. I mean, even when we have a case of two well-known languages, it is often the case that the meaning of certain expressions in one language are quite simply incapable of being accurately translated into the other language.

There was a great deal of interest in ancient Egypt long before hieroglyphics were successfully deciphered in 1822 after centuries of attempts: [url=http://]http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/rosetta.html[/url]

There are other ancient languages that have yet to be deciphered but there is interest in doing so: [url=http://]https://www.livescience.com/59851-ancient-languages-not-yet-deciphered.htm[/url]l; [url=http://]https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/6-lost-languages-and-scripts-that-have-not-yet-been-deciphered/[/url]; — Fooloso4

There are innumerable people throughout written history who claim to have deciphered some ancient text or another. I'm not denying that many people, most I would say, think/believe that it is possible to decipher an ancient text from a long dead civilization.

I'm refuting that thought/belief.

In order to even be able to do that, the meaning of the text would have to be able to persist through time, despite the fact of it's users all having long since perished. I'm arguing based upon what can be known about current languages, and how their meaning persists through time. That takes three things. With an ancient text, we have only one.

If so, then I would say yes. It may be that the language can be recovered. It has happened before. Once the language is understood the meaning can be discovered.
— Fooloso4

Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowing what the marks mean IS understanding the language... — creativesoul

Do you imagine that this is not so obvious that you have to state it? — Fooloso4

Some things are obvious to some people. Others, not so much.

What you seemed to have missed is that by virtue of agreeing with me, you've arrived at self-contradiction. You've stated that once the language is understood, then we can discover the meaning. The point I'm making is that it is impossible to understand the language without knowing the meaning and vice-versa. Understanding a language and knowing the meaning are the very same thing.

You've drawn a distinction between the two, and there is no difference to be had.

The meaning of a text is not dependent upon anyone at time T actually understanding the language...

That presupposes precisely what's at issue here. Do you not see that? Whether or not the meaning of a language is existentially dependent upon it's language users is precisely what needs argued for.

What needs to be definitively determined is what it takes for the meaning of this text in this language to persist through time. What is it that is persisting? To answer "the meaning" is not at all helpful. For starters, the written aspect of the language persists. That holds good for the ancient text as well. Secondly, the use of the language. That does not hold good for the ancient text. So, the question then becomes...

Is the meaning of written text existentially dependent upon it's use? — creativesoul

Continuing on...

There's a little gleaned by looking at how meaning changes in current languages. Language users can change the meaning of well known terms and phrases simply by virtue of drawing a correlation between pre-existing terms/phrases and something other than what current use correlates with the term/phrase. When enough people do this, the new meaning is an accepted alternative use for the same term/phrase; a new "sense", as it were. There are so many examples of this in the English language, that it ought be obvious to any competent user thereof. So, the meaning of marks change with use.

That is the creation of new meaning.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the creation of the original meaning was any different. There's is also no reason to think that the original meaning did not depend upon the same elemental constituents. This also shows the irrevocably crucial importance that actual language use has regarding the meaning of current texts. It shows what meaning consists of.

Nothing I've said here fatally undermines current convention when it comes to theories of meaning. Rather, it dovetails quite nicely to the SEP article regarding them. Convention has it that all theories of meaning basically fall into two groups. The difference between the two is irrelevant. The similarity is remarkable. They both presuppose symbolism. Symbolism itself is existentially dependent upon the following three things; something to become a sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between the two.

It is imperative to state something here very clearly. Those things which become symbol and symbolized, along with those things which become sign and significant... those things are neither until the correlation is drawn between them.

That is the original attribution and/or creation of meaning. That is how linguistic meaning emerges onto the world stage. There are no examples to the contrary.

If such a text were found it might be of great interest depending on the author or time at which it was written. — Fooloso4

Impossible.

How can an ancient text from a long dead people be of great interest depending upon the time or author, when in order to know what the time was or who the author was, the text would have to be already understood, and the text itself would have to state the time and author in the language of the text.

The ancient text is not understood.

So, what you are asking is whether a text has meaning if no one understands the language?

If so, then I would say yes. It may be that the language can be recovered. It has happened before. Once the language is understood the meaning can be discovered. — Fooloso4

Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowing what the marks mean IS understanding the language...

The question I'm asking is in the OP. The main thrust of the rest is considering what it would take to know the answer.

There may be, on the other hand, texts that have been lost and thus not read or "used" for thousands of years. If such a text were found it might be of great interest depending on the author or time at which it was written. It might prove to be extremely useful to those with an interest since it fills in gaps or gives a new perspective on the subject. — Fooloso4

This presupposes already understanding the language the ancient text is written in. We must first know what subject they are talking about prior to being able to know that they're talking about the same thing in different ways. That's what a new perspective is.

The problem of course is that we do not have any way of knowing what those marks were actually used for.