Objective Semantics

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by TruthSeeker, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Ok.... so we often have problems with word definitions, right? But why does that happen? Maybe it is because we have a subjective view of semantics?

    Well... let's begin by defining semantics, then....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    se·man·tics Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
    n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
    Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
    Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
    The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.


    What would make the same meaning true to all people? Wouldn't that be developed throughout a long time? So, maybe, semantics is very subjective and as the language develops, some of the meaning becomes more and more objective. Hence why words like... errr... "cunt" for example (

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), were simply the meaning, but as the time went by it got a more pejorative meaning. So what would change the meaning? Well... I gues it would depend on which context the word would be used, and then as time would go by, more and more people would use the given word in the same context and the additional subjective meaning would be incorporated into the objective meaning.

    In other words.... the words that we read are farily subjective in meaning, because it all depends on the context that they were used throughout our lives. All semantics would then be essentially subjective, even tough with an objective approach, we try to fix this problem.

    Still.... the nameless cannot be named....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    So... what would be the real semantics (there is, the objective one)?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mushin Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    I would agree that we have a subjective of semantics and this would lead to our problems with language and communication. I'm not sure however that we could hold an objective form of semantics. Your question leads me to think you are suggesting some sort of platonic form of each word which I would contend doesn't exist. However if we were to think that all our subjective uses of a word are working toward some more objective understanding of the word we would also have to consider that this objective viewpoint would be in constant transformation and thus always subjective to the world around us. I'm not sure that even makes sense...but yeah good question.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    It does make sense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We were talking about that yesterday night at the dinner table. But the subject was slightly different. It was about semantics in the context of art. We talked about how paints have symbols that represent something for the painter, but can represent something completely different for another person. For example, a dog could represent a menacing figure for someone that had already being bitten by a dog, but it could be a symbol of guidance for a blind man. Or the dove, which often represent peace, but could represent just an animal for an alien.

    I just let them talk as usual. They couldn't reach to a conclusion about which meaning was the correct one, but I reached a very striking one.... All meanings are equally valid.

    But anyways..... that's the end of semantics, I guess....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Or at least the objective one...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    More on the symbolism...

    "se·mi·ot·ics also se·mei·ot·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm-tks, sm-, sm-)
    n. (used with a sing. verb)
    The theory and study of signs and symbols, especially as elements of language or other systems of communication, and comprising semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics."

    This is interesting cause language is also made up of symbols that represent the meanings, so semiotics should be very much the same as semantics...
     
  8. Mushin Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    I agree that in terms of symbols all meanings are equally valid and because of this always subjective to whatever meaning we want to ascribe to them. In terms of art though I think a more interesting thought would be to consider the statement no valuable painting has ever consisted of simply representing.

    that is also interesting about the semiotics and semantics existing along similiar paths certainly it seems they would. I would want to contend however that even though language exists as symbols it can never fully be understood in terms of these symbols because language and words go beyond the symbols they are consisted of.
     
  9. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Not quite. I suppose you have the meaning of the words in mind? In this case, what would come first, the meaning of the words or the words themselves? The meanings, right? So it follows that symbols can fully be understood in terms of the symbols themselves. The difficulty here is that we are so used to connecting the symbols to their meanings that the symbols became the meanings. But when we were kids, the meanings and the symbols were separate. Our minds were not logical enough, and that made our thought process quite abstract. This is why kids can learn languages so fast and differentiate between them. They don't connect the symbols and the meanings automatically, but they separate them, and than consciously associating them.

    In order to make the distinction more clear, let me use some symbolism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    If you have a bucket of water, the bucket and the water are not the same, right. But once you put water in a bucket, the water assumes the shape of the bucket. The meanings of the words are like the water and the words are like buckets with different meanings. We use the "buckets" to differentiate the "water" which is shapeless. Meanings are also shapeless and it is hard to understand them logically when they are so abstract. That's why we adapt them using words, so that we can communicate properly.

    It's like the old chinese story.... if you point your finger to the moon, you should not confuse your finger for the moon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Mushin Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    yes symbols can be given a definite meaning in terms of symbols I think more what I was trying to get at was that even though the symbols that are words can be understood the meanings that our words never really can be fully grasped. So I suppose there is a fundamental problem in trying to talk about language from language in that language will never be able to truly grasp its own meaning.
     
  11. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    You've maken a kind of category mistake here. One must differentiate between the Form of a theory and the Content therein. Semantics is an approach to understanding. As such, it enjoys a particular structure, and is itself devoid of content. The object of semantics however, is certainly content rich, and definitely not of a permanent structure: a symbology embedded in culture and used by frail creatures. The content of semantics will forever be inconstant; that does not necessarily deny the attempt at objectivity. One could go so far as to argue that a 'subjective semantics' is impossible, if not indeed a contradiction. The only escape from these conclusions would be to allow for a true objective reality. This would force us to take a Foundationalist/Rationalist ontology (good luck with that one..lol).
     
  12. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Yes, that's the Semantic Paradox. You have fully understood my Epistemologic Theory...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Have you read the bucket/water demonstration? I explicitly said that, at this point, we cannot differentiate between words and meanings. If we do, we lose ground for communication, which is the very conclusion of the Semantic Paradox....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, attempt. But what is nameless, cannot be named. And the moon is not a finger, even if you point your finger to the moon to communicate "the moon". The flaw of semantics is to mistake the word for the meaning.

    You probably meant "objective". Subjective semantics is the fact that the meaning of the words differ from person to person, which makes it impossible to communicate things in a proper manner, without contradictions.

    Such an objective reality can only exist without language. Objective reality is independent from language. Language is an attempt to define what it cannot really be defined. Even this whole conversation that we are having is full of semantic flaws.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We are likely saying something and understanding others....

    Welll I don't know.... I have a philosophy class and unfortunately I have to forget all this stuff for now....

    I don't think I want to go there right now....

    Yes! It is tough, eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Mushin Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Thanks.

    What class? and if you don't mind me asking what college?
     
  15. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Philosophy 100.... introduction to philosophy....
    I've been studying philosophy by myself for more than 8 years, tough. So this "introduction" is just a requirement before I can go to the "real" courses...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Camosun College.... Victoria... BC....
     
  16. Mushin Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    always nice to meet a fellow philosophy student.
     
  17. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    The human english language statement "Something does exist." is objectively true.

    Statements like "something does exist" or "truth does exist" or "reality does .." are independent from language. At the same time, one can argue that they don't define "anything" except the fact that there is a reality which we can not define. .. (We do not know "what" it is, but we do know that it .. "IS".
     
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    That's correct from a rational perspective. However, when you use words to define something such as truth, the original meaning of the word is lost through the translation of the meaning to a limited word. That is because meanings are unlimited and amorphous. They have no form, and no delimitations. When you say the word "truth", the true meaning of the word is lost in the simbolic representation. It is like trying to put an entire ocean inside a bucket of water. You can only put a little bit of the ocean's water inside the bucket. And of course, you cannot call the water in the bucket an "ocean". It can represent the ocean, but it is never going to transmit the true and full meaning.


    "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

    The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
    The named is the mother of the ten thousand things."​

    --Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, Ch1)​
     
  19. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    uhhmm .. True?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (I agree)
     
  20. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Yes... specially in sciforums....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Good.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is what I call "spirit"....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    So does mathematics come into it at all? Starting with music and triangles and working upwards.
     
  23. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Isn't mathematics also a human language?
     

Share This Page