UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> There is no meaning


2/16/05 1:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
88 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 16-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4305
 
*The following is from a series of threads to stimulate some conversation. They do not mean i know anything about the topic, and do not necessarily express my opinion* This is about language, not life, but i think the meaning of life discussion could easily be a further extension, so please discuss. I want to say first, that there is no such thing as non-natural speaker meaning of words/statements as something totally seperable from natural meaning. I may be mixing up some of my terms here (im a novice in this area) but it seems as though NNmeaning amounts to natural meaning with some sort of intention added by people that grants the illusion of being different, when in reality the intentions themselves are mearly natural meanings too. Secondly, there seems to me to be no metaphysical meaning objects. There is a cause and effect relationship for sure that is construed as some kind of meaning. EG. "these red bumps mean chickenpox" only ultimately proposes that the virus causally creates red bumps. I think that human language, although obviosuly complex and bound with intentions, eventually reduces to to this sort of meaning. -doug-
2/17/05 1:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dory
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/09/2005
Posts: 10
If there is no meaning in words, why do you bother typing them?
2/17/05 11:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
88 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4310
Why do you bother posting on threads without reading the content or even attempting to understand? Perhaps i shall speak slower and in simpler terms for those that do not understand (of course a simple "i don't get it" would have been a little better, but this works too i guess). The second paragraph after the disclaimer deals with the seperation that some philosophers of language and linguists make between natural meaning (like in the chicken pox example) and non-natural meaning (EG. a lifeguard blowing his whistle to indicate "adult swim time"). I think the latter can be considered one and the same with the former. The third paragraph after the disclaimer points out the apparent lack of abstract propositional entities. There are, however, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that we share that allow us to communicate. 'Meaning' is *NOT* mind independent. It is housed in (and reduced to) the functional capacities of our brain. -doug-
2/17/05 4:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11191

"'Meaning' is *NOT* mind independent. "

I guess I agree with this aswell, but is this really that controversial?

2/17/05 5:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
88 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4320
Fudo, It is. There are a lot of Platonists kicking around when it comes to numbers or meanings. perhaps i need to look into the *OTHER* side of the argument to kick up some controversy... -doug-
2/17/05 10:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dory
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/09/2005
Posts: 14
"I want to say first, that there is no such thing as non-natural speaker meaning of words/statements as something totally seperable from natural meaning." What is natural meaning? You assert that there is a natural meaning in a causal relation, i.e. red bumps mean chicken pox, and reduce that all other relationships reduce to some natural meaning i.e. blowing a whistle means get out of the pool and this is understood because that relation was conveyed to others by terms which you assert go back to what you term natural meaning. Why do red bumps mean chicken pox? Do rocks know that red bumps mean chicken pox? Do all people know that red bumps mean chicken pox? In what sense is this natural? How does man even begin to relate these natural meanings if their are no abstract propostional entities. Logic itself is an abstract proposition entity. Do you deny that true logic is mind independent? There are examples of whole societies advocating polylogism i.e. Marxist class logic. I assert that polylogism is false. True logic is mind independent. True logic is a reflection of the thoughts of an intelligent Creator. Meaning is mind independent, though individual brains often misinterpret meaning.
2/22/05 2:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dogbowl
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 308
"Meaning" , is that the same as "definition" in this regard? I was going to respond to the "chairs" thread. There was a movie about a found Coke bottle, which wasn't a Coke bottle anymore after falling from an airplane. It became what it was used for: a rolling pin, a stamp, a mallet, something to look through. Much like a wooden chair, once a tree, perhaps destined as woodchips or land fill. Definitions do change for basically the same matter.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.