Words have no Meaning

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by BeHereNow, Feb 24, 2008.

  1. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I see what you mean but I suggest that you are wrong. The outcome of reasoning is the result of what one has taken into consideration, what one has rejected and accepted. If we ask a dozen people to consider a question, the answers given will not all be the same. They will depend on intelligence, how well one is informed, one's life experience and a host of other subjective factors. Thus, I cannot claim that my reasoning is objective.

    You are overlooking the fact that in reasoning you are not necessarily starting from the same place as others. Hence, your reasoning can only be subjective.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    ...and that such reasoning is based on observation (of objects) and deduction, not introspection.
    Of course, as soon as you build a model of something, you've abstracted it, so you can abstract the abstraction, or think about what the model you have really is, and on until you end up going up the spout of your own abstraction. Sort of an abstraction vortex.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Since this thread has gotten completely offtrack......




    Correct.

    "Meaning" is nothing beyond the signification of relevance granted to a notion by its perceptor.

    The problem here is that the OP is implicitly contrasting an artificial meaning with an innate meaning. This is further problematized with the ontological assumption of an innate meaning.

    Remove the non-subjective ontological status of meaning, and the problem dissolves: a meaning is specifically, and only given.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I agree with you, though I am not sure fuzzy logic is the right term. There are others here who think free will is illusory. But I will leave their objections to them.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Whoah neddy; "nothing beyond" the signification (i.e. meaning) of relevance (i.e. meaning)?? Meaning means nothing if it's "beyond" the meaning of meaning...
    It gets granted to a notion, i.e. an idea? You mean we assign meaning to it?
    An innate meaning being "one we get born with", presumably?
    You mean, we only assign it subjectively, this meaning thing? Well, sure. But we don't do it by ourselves, we compare notes.
     
  9. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    lol

    You misunderstand.

    The signification (which is not meaning) relates the object in question to another.

    Exactly.

    No.
    An innate one being the one construed as somehow being a 'part of', or 'property' of the notion in question.

    Exactly.
     
  10. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    How does it relate an object to another object? Surely the sign is a symbol or representation of the thing in question, so it has meaning..?
    How is it "a part of" or "a property of" the notion? Either it's there in our heads or it isn't. We recognise a pattern or we don't.
     
  11. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Not entirely.
    The symbol signifies more than itself; indeed, it signifies an other thing as well. This is the action of relation.


    According to you an I, yes.
    According to the OP (and those people who can be described as essentialists), no.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Isn't truth really always a value someone superimposes on something ?
    Truth is related to meaning, and while it has a basis in reality it is not the same thing.
    Truth cannot be objective, it is always subjective.
    I think the words you are looking for are 'objective reality'.
     
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So how many symbols are needed to convey actual meaning...?
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What do you mean by 'actual meaning' ?
     
  15. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Well, a symbol relates something, and doesn't have "meaning" entirely, according to glaucon (but I'm not sure what that means).

    So when does "meaning" arrive on the scene? If one symbol doesn't do it?
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The question is to who, a symbol can have meaning to someone. And it can have an entirely different meaning to someone else.
    A symbol means what we want it to mean. It doesn't mean anything in itself.

    Same with words.
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    " When I use a word it means what I want it to mean......"

    Humpty Dumpty

    Alice
     
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I think Enmos means that symbols can have various meanings, which means complementary meanings. I don't think conflicting meanings works so well.

    Words are meant to convey particular meanings. So words are like containers with messages in them, or something.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Look up any word in the dictionary, I can pretty much guarantee that it will have more than one meaning.
    About symbols, the perfect example is the Swastika..

    Also, what does the word 'pop' mean to you (just a random example) ?
     
  20. shorty_37 Go! Canada Go! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,140
    Pop means...........drinks like Coke, pepsi, 7 up, all of them.......

    Hey do you want a pop?
    Sure what kind?
    Coke Zero thanks
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, and pop means something else to me:

    Translations

    pop [de ~ (v),de ~] (mooi meisje)
    doll [the ~]
    manequin [the ~]
    beautiful girl [the ~]
    pretty girl [the ~]
    pop [de ~ (v),de ~] (speelpop)
    puppet [the ~]
    doll [the ~]
    pop [de ~ (v),de ~] (speelgoedpop)
    dress-stand [the ~]
    dummy [the ~]
    doll [the ~]

    http://www.interglot.com/interglotresult.php
     
  22. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    The idea of words or language as a container is a fairly imbedded one in our language. It is a kind of metaphor for language. Metaphors can have strengths and weaknesses, since they tend to highlight certain aspects and hide others. They can in fact be very misleading.
    I do not think the argument put forth here is the best one, but it gives a taste. Reddy went on to consciously construct an alternative tool-users metaphor and laid out how it might improve our communication skills, partially by humbling us. The meaning is not 'in' the words in that metaphor, so we cannot simply expect the other person to open up the container and take it out.
     
  23. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Some further meanings of pop

    Dad
    Shot as in popgun, a kid's toy
    Lemonade
    The sound one hears when a balloon bursts
    The sound made when one puts one's finger in one's mouth and pulls it out against the cheek
    Popeye
    Popshop a pawnbroker's shop

    As a verb

    Pop in/ out/ over/up
    pop one's clogs (klompen, ha, ha) to die
    pop... to pawn an article
    Pop a girl....self-explanatory
     

Share This Page