What @Tom Storm seems to be alluding to is that we have beetles in boxes, pace Wittgenstein...

What I'm alluding to is that there's something about intension that hides behind the words that are then interpreted. But, I already know your answer in that there's nothing more than what is said when someone says it.

So, there is something mysterious about meaning after all?

But, take Banno and busycuttingcrap argument for example, who inspired me to make this thread. That meaning is use...

If meaning is indeed use, then would it be possible that things once said, now could mean different things?

I believe that's true, or how you interpreted the OP. But, I'm still apprehensive to claim that meaning consists of use, what do you think?

No, you're taking the time element too literally. What I meant was that if meaning can be lost or altered (think reification of terms of words), then is it possible that meaning can alter over time. I mean, norms do change, and with that meaning too, yes?

I don't want to put convention at the centre - that'd be more Davidson than Wittgenstein. And even Davidson is explicit about how language use breaches convention. Use need not be base don convention, but usually is. — Banno

We'll it seems to me that convention is a quantifier over timespans of recent past. Whereas, foundationalist interpretations are constant.

So, referencing @busycuttingcrap I believe it wouldn't be pertinent to label Wittgenstein with being a strict conventionalist even though he advocated it even in cases with formal languages such as mathematics, where it may be easier to spot where the stipulation became commonly adopted.

Just for sake of saying it, I think Kripke addresses this issue with the causal chain of reference and the initial baptizing of a name, as not depending on its status as a fact, pace early Wittgenstein.

I do like Davidson a lot though even if I didn't read him much yet.

So you ask "Does meaning persist over time?" and ↪busycuttingcrap and I suggest looking a the problem by replacing meaning with use [...] — Banno

So, just to summarize what you and busycuttingcrap are saying is that conventions dictate how language use is utilized in writing or speech?

The discrepancy in meaning between speaker and listener occurs because the meaning is generated at two or more different places, from two or more different perspectives, each furnished with their own levels of understanding. — NOS4A2

Understanding of what?

So to ask whether meaning persists over time is to ask whether particular usages persist over time: do people use the term the same way. — busycuttingcrap

As per @Banno and yourself, is it right to infer that to treat this as a bona fide case for conventionalism? I know Wittgenstein advocated that to even the formal languages of mathematics immutable to the effects of culture, society, history and time(?)

I think I'm out of my depth here, so I digress. But, I would like to mention that history or what you put down as 'time' is of more importance rather than culture, no?

As I said, we understand things through our place in time and culture. — Tom Storm

Sure, I mean that if culture is so important than isn't history of equal importance to give a view of what the contexts might have meant or how things fit into the context of the culture of question at the time?

Meanings and significance change as culture changes. — Tom Storm

Is that really true or are you comparing social norms with the way we find meaning in what is said?

Isn't that assuming that you can separate language from the culture and world from which it comes? — Tom Storm

Well, I think the discussion about culture and society can addressed more precisely by invocating the significance of history to language. In how large a degree does language and historicism apply? I think Hegel spoke fervently about dialectics and historicism in addressing this issue at hand. I think this topic can evolve in so many ways so I'll just sit on the sidelines to see what Banno and others say.

The cultural relevance of names and symbols in the interpretation of meaning belongs to the field of semiotics, which I am very shaky in also.

I'm just hoping we can get to fusion soon enough. Cheap electricity is the best predictor for economic growth.

I thought you were referring to the discipline of philosophy and not what mostly happens on TPF. — 180 Proof

Afterwords, or after the fact I realized what you say as true. With notable exceptions within the thought of Spinoza or TLP or within academia. Yet, there are some examples, such as, scholasticism which employed syllogistic logic to a great extent with little to show for also.

The Tractatus is about as obscure and technically dense as you'll find, — busycuttingcrap

Yes, but it's profound, isn't it?

The world is the totality of facts and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent, are really cool things to do as a philosopher! :cool:

not just because its usually clear and understandable, but because it occasionally even achieves poetic beauty, which is a very rare thing to find in your usual philosophical tomes. — busycuttingcrap

What about Wittgenstein?

Yes, and who decides to burn your books and vilify them...

I have doubts that the precise meaning of Plato today is the same as it was then. — Tom Storm

Surely that's a feature not of language, no?

Propositional statements aim to stay a step ahead of ineffability by capturing anything sayable within a formal logic of use. But the very formality of the logic, with its presuppositions of extant, persisting symbolic meanings ,neutral , external connectors (is , iff) and activities of shuffling and coordination achieves its triumph over ineffability at the expense of meaninglessness. — Joshs

Hardly so obscure. If the Dialogues of Plato are still readable today in English language, then meaning persists over time irrespective of what you seem to be advocating some kind of coherentist theory of meaning.

Stoic "apatheia" is freedom from emotional disturbance, not "apathy" as currently defined. — Ciceronianus

So, why isn't the current use of apatheia, not consistent with the ancient use of it? Was there some magical reification of it or did external circumstances change so much that apathy has no bearing on the ancient use of the term?

The period of Roman Stoicism was, in fact, a fairly turbulent one in the Empire, including trouble with the Germanic tribes which kept Marcus Aurelius away from Rome for many years, trouble with Parthia, the onset of Christianity and failure of traditional religion, the rise of the mystery religions; the Bar Kochba rebellion in Palestine. — Ciceronianus

All the more reason to admire Marcus Aurelius as a Roman stoic.

I'll say it again - most of the discussions we have are not easily expressible in these kinds of formats, e.g. you didn't express your OP in logical format. Also, you specifically used an example of an empirical question - the identity of the evening and morning stars - but the format you are discussing only relates to deductive reasoning. — T Clark

So, I suppose I'll try and say it again. If we are concerned about valid inferences and sound reasoning, what's wrong with displaying the logical form of an argument? I mean, you did take the example of syllogisms from the Wikipedia article on logical form as an example? Furthermore, it seems that displaying the logical form of a sentence doesn't only apply to deductive reasoning...

Many if not most arguments here are either straight-forward or fallacious (proving one's hypothesis, etc.) — jgill

How are they straightforward? They seem obscure and vague mostly. Indicating a ernest amount of laziness in how one decided to express themselves.

Again, philosophy is not difficult with the right tools.

What do you mean by "logical form." — T Clark

I mean the syntax or grammer of a sentence expressed in logical form. And, SEP has a better entry on logical form.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/

It's considered antisocial, or plain rude, to point out a logical error. Criticism is met with indignation, instead of explanation. — Banno

I'll quote you on that. Yet, in the spirit of doing philosophy of all places, on a philosophy forum, I don't think it should be interpreted as what you describe.

All that needs to be stated is that we're on a philosophy forum where despite its appeal , descriptive discourse is allowed, one ought to appeal to logic more often...

When was the last time you saw an honest post in the philosophy of logic sub-category?

I mean, philosophy shouldn't be any harder than people impressed with the thought that it's all about grounding metaphysics or bashing opinions, should it?

I don't know if you're in agreement with this statement; but, the type of analysis that I see professed by other members, claiming to do analysis, is tantamount to opinion bashing and, sophistry.

It's rare to see solid arguments formed in first order logic or in epistemological terms clearly stated.

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil. — Bret Bernhoft

Back in the ancient days of Greece and Rome, there was nowhere near the need to be vigilant and active in daily life as there is today. One of the important features of stoicism is a term called, 'apatheia' or more commonly known as apathy. I guess being apathetic is natural for a stoic; but, is hard to reconcile with modern day life.

That's one negative I have encountered with actually living out stoicism. Another issue is the conflict with managing what is under ones control. There are many things one must constantly harass oneself with being proactive nowadays in maintaining what one has control over. It's a dismal state of constantly checking and maintaining control over all these trifle issues. Hence, more often than not I have appealed to cynicism to nullify the need or rather desire to control what little I actually have control over.

Edit:
There's also one other irreconcilable difference between modern day life and ancient Greece or Rome for example. Namely the life in the polis and the brotherhood and unity of the stoic philosophy and the individualism of modern day life. The atomic unit of the family in modern day living is at odds with the unity and brother/sisterhood of ancient stoicism. In other words, you're stuck in your shell.

I imagine that routinely goes on at the NSA.

I recently finished Rorty's Linguistic Turn, which was really a great introduction to linguistic philosophy. I'm hoping someone would want to delve more into the current state of the linguistic turn in philosophy, nowadays.

Oh, a reading group for Nietzsche would be quite some fun...

I'd like to ask if anyone would be interested in reading something published by Scott Soams?

You seem to be on point with that claim. Thanks for the references.

When I want "higher quality content" I read the greats. — Janus

I'm not concerned with the greats. All that characterizes them is their originality, and genius. I do enjoy as of recent more of the analytic and academic philosophers. They seem to be on well grounding that is fun to entertain and provides a nice relief from all the hogwash and wallowing.

Freud was a big Nietzsche fan — busycuttingcrap

I read stuff to the contrary. Would you care to provide sources on this claim?

Do you consider any philosophical position extreme and with disturbing or bizarre consequence? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, albeit with a small example, namely, stuff that some people actually do take seriously, which is philosophical pessimism or even untenable positions like solipsism...

My concern is the resulting incoherence of philosophical pessimism with stuff like the increase in living standards, which it so frequently criticizes with people like Marx. Or the incoherence of solipsism, which just doesn't make sense.

And, it goes without saying that some philosophers are mad.

I would like to see more high quality stuff, such as more essay or book reading groups, like we did in the beginning. — Jamal

I was going to ask the same thing; but, the current festive atmosphere ought not be disturbed so I digress.

I'm looking forward to inviting a philosopher if possible or starting up a reading group.

Anyone else want to have a reading group also?

Perhaps 4D logic, another fiction of language, attains to a level of “continuity” that gives meaning to serial holism. — ucarr

What's 4D logic? Just curious...

So, are you looking for higher quality content as per the OP?

What is the pursuit of understanding in your opinion? To me it sounds very vague.

There is no qualifier for existential questions.

A closeup would be appreciated. She looks like a goer. — Vera Mont

She's a pig that @T Clark shared. She had a hard life. I hope he can update with a new picture of Charlotte soon.