Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by BeHereNow, Feb 24, 2008.
You call Lemonade Pop?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Can we agree on particular meanings depending on the context in which they are used ?
Better than the reverse.
Yep. We may be talking about a different type of lemonade, which would beautifully illustrate the point Enmos is making.
Pop, on this side of the pond means lemonade or similar that comes in a bottle,a fizzy drink.
You may be thinking of lemonade made with fresh lemons
Do Canadian girls get popped ?
You may not have heard this but Oscar Wilde made the point you are making. He spoke of America and England as
"Two countries divided by a common language"
Well, the same symbols or symbol constructions can mean different things to different people. And the same meaning can be represented by different symbols or symbol constructions..
It's pretty straight forward I'd say.. what is the confusion about ?
Yes I thought of a jug of lemonade. In Canada only those "fuzzy drinks"
carbonated drinks like Coke, Pepsi, Crush, 7 Up, etc are called POP.
Drinks like the lemonade you are describing wouldn't be called a POP.
I have also heard the Term......Hear about that guy who got Popped at the club last night, meaning shot.
Do Canadian girls get popped hmmmmmm I don't know if I should even take a guess at this one lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes they do.....Some more than others lol
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's why you are here to talk about it.
By, the way, I'm not sure that lemonade in a bottle has ever been near a lemon, cherryade near a cherry and so on. They are conctions of water, CO2 and flavouring.
I drink what you call lemonade.
Hey I was just doing my workout. The instructor actually said this.
Okay faster come on POP! POP!.......lol
Enmos has it correct here.
Symbols, like words, can have a distinct meaning or, more likely, often share meanings with other symbols. Thus, both the Cruciform and Swastika are crosses, and may convey meaning associated with certain religious structures. And yet, while they both share in this, the Swastika may certainly convey meaning that could never be done so by the Cruciform.
Just like words, symbols in and of themselves, are mute; meaning is entirely a function of context and application.
I like it. It's a good thing I alerted you and saved your honour. That's one you owe me, ha, ha
However, something that can make this issue difficult to understand is the fact that there are so many words, so many symbols. Where did they come from? How? If they have developed - how, why, in what time?
Anthroplogists and linguists will have us look back at primitive man, list a dozen of possible words or symbols that he might have used. But how did human language get from there to where it is today?!
It's easy to say "It slowly developed over time". But frankly, I find the notion of millenia and millenia of development mind-boggling. Given the complexity and length of an evolutionary outlook, and the difficulty to prove it, it's no wonder many people find some form of essentialism to be closer to reality.
I would suggest that ,as our lifestyle became more sophisticated ,our vocabulary had to grow ( be expanded by us ) so we could communicate more complex ideas.
True enough. But I would have to argue that an essentialist perspective is simply easier, naive even. Understandable? Yes, but it too often falls short of being exhaustive. What's more, it's anthropomorphocentric to believe in such a 'Ding An Sich' or 'Platonic Form' type of ontology.
Indeed. Just as there are so many things, and so many people to name them.
Consider the possible tonal gradations of a red paint.
How many different names could one observer create for each tone he identifies? Now consider that another observer comes along. How many different tones will she identify? More, less, or the same number? Assuming the two could agree even on one, and then agree on a name for it, what is to say that they are indeed experiencing the same tone? Next, add another observer into the mix.
Thus the need for symbols and language. All is convention.
I think there is an element of streamlining and inflexibility in essentialism. To be poised and flexible in communication is challenging creatively and perhaps emotionally. I can remember when I first became fluent in a second language how I felt no culture shock until we got to the names of plants. Suddenly I felt unhinged. The plant names often fit the plants: they were not merely arbritrary signs, but often were descriptive - this is true of many words but the roots are not so conscious. I actually felt grief, like my relationship with plants had become more anonymous. The phase passed.
To really be prepared to meet others with a shifting set of approaches, a creative dynamic language is a challenge I think most people want to avoid. We have hardened in places into ways of mentioning things and expressing feelings in language such that it feels like our identity is being challenged by someone who demands - even simply by not understanding - a non habitual rephrasing. And to be a flexible communicator you need to be able to not simply substitute synonyms and paraphrases, but utilize grammar and tone of voice in nuanced ways, and this again is challenging rigidity in character.
Tonal languages really mess with my head here, where it seemed like I had to convey the wrong emotion just naming certain objects at the right pitch.
But one need not get into exotic contexts to be challenged as any close relationship with opposite sex will show you.
I suppose that is an exotic context, however commonplace we want to believe it is.
Then there's the whole issue of when language can change the boundaries of a noun.
No, that is where that noun ends.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
A function of context and application, sounds like some kind of agency.
So, how many symbols are needed to convey "meaning"? What are the requirements of "context", or "application"?
One symbol can convey meaning, but how is unambiguous meaning (like we tried with the Voyager plaque) conveyed...? Or is it impossible?
If you're wandering in a big desert, all you can see is a vast sea of sand. There is no "meaning", no features appear to convey it, just this same surface, a continuous 2-d plane.
Then you see a rock sitting, all by itself? How come there's this hard, lumpy thing where there should be sand? What's it doing here? Did someone else put it here?
What does it mean, this odd, hard lumpy rock thing? What if there's another one nearby (in some direction), is that more meaningful?
I'm going to play the devil's advocate for this one:
What exactly is wrong with the anthropomorphocentric belief in such a 'Ding An Sich' or 'Platonic Form' type of ontology?
I wonder how come many people have such distrust -and disdain- when it comes to the notion of something being a "convention".
Say "Language use is a convention" or "The way we are supposed to behave at the table is a convention", and they'll maul you, calling you a "pernicious relativist". (To say nothing of suggesting "Religion is a convention".)
What does anthropomorphocentric mean? Without the whole "meaning is meaningful to meanings... " stuff.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And exactly what's essentialism?
Anthropo - that's us.
morpho - of shape or "form".
centric - aimed at the self.
We anthropoids (or anthropological beings) are anthropomorphic - we assign human nature or "personality" to non-humans and inorganic things (like vehicles, boats, lakes, rivers, we even call a day "she").
Oh. Hmm. I myself prefer platonic idealism, to a level. But I'm not sure how that's anthropomorphocentric. Those ideas actively projected in reality can vary and become more complicated, so it shouldn't conflict with "evolutionary outlook". Maybe platonic idealism includes more elements than I know.
Separate names with a comma.