It is raining: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

It is raining

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 638

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:23 PM:	#51
It's quite "stupid" using a word that doesn't have a reference, or maybe it does. It would appear to refer to ones self. Say a window(object) gets hit by a rock. The window is there protecting me from the environment. When the window is hit by the rock, the environment can interacting with me and I say: "It(the window) was hit by a rock"...dunno
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/30/09 - 05:32 PM:	#52
Willowz wrote: It's quite "stupid" using a word that doesn't have a reference, The problem is with the implicit or explicit theory that every word has a referent. It just ain't so. And this is another example from our everyday use of English that demonstrates the poverty of the referential theory of meaning.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:52 PM:	#53
Willowz wrote: It's quite "stupid" using a word that doesn't have a reference, or maybe it does. It would appear to refer to ones self. Say a window(object) gets hit by a rock. The window is there protecting me from the environment. When the window is hit by the rock, the environment can interacting with me and I say: "It(the window) was hit by a rock"...dunno It is there for consistency, not to be smart or stupid. And it is not unreasonable to value consistency in rules, its just that it is a feature of a particular language as a workaround for a problem which its larger worldview creates (so if you want to find something stupid look to the larger worldview).

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:01 PM:	#54
Having not read all the posts, for the sentence "It is raining," has anyone mentioned that the pronoun 'It' here is referred to as a 'dummy' subject. It's a placeholder for a subject which normally 'would' refer. It has to do with the fact that in English syntax, there's a rule whereby "for every finite sentence, one must have a subject."
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:25 PM:	#55
It's like american football. You know the vector, how far the vector is and a few dozen other technical aspects. You however do not always arrive knowing for which team you scored. "Grammatical" definately helps. What most people never consider though is whether or not the grammatical has transitive or instransitive properties as well.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:49 PM:	#56
Cadrache wrote: It's like american football. Like that helps.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 638

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:21 PM:	#57
Banno wrote: The problem is with the implicit or explicit theory that every word has a referent. It just ain't so. And this is another example from our everyday use of English that demonstrates the poverty of the referential theory of meaning. What theory seems most reasonable at the moment? If it isn't a referential theory...
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:24 PM:	#58
hehe... help? It is raining. It is raining! The subject "it" in the first sentence is applied to be relative to 'rain' in some degree. The subject "it" in the second sentence with the exclamation mark innotates that it might be the person making the statement. The extension of grammatical transative however is a bit different. Gotta go. Overtime tommorrow, so words might flow again in less then 10 hours.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:41 PM:	#59
Willowz wrote: Banno wrote: The problem is with the implicit or explicit theory that every word has a referent. It just ain't so. And this is another example from our everyday use of English that demonstrates the poverty of the referential theory of meaning. What theory seems most reasonable at the moment? If it isn't a referential theory... Use.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 234

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:37 AM:	#60
@ Cadrache: (1) "What is this thing doing?" "You mean this cloud?" "Yes, this cloud." "It is raining." (2) "How are you doing?" "Well, I'm cold." "Why?" "Because it's raining." (3) "It's raining" "What's raining?" "The sky is raining, of course." "Does the sky rain? I thought clouds rain?" "Well, perhaps the clouds are raining." "I thought you said it's raining?" (4) "It's windy" "What's windy?" "The air is windy, of course." "What is this 'it'?" "Well, the weather of course." "No, I mean what is 'it'? I know it's the weather."
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.