Article: What is the meaning of words?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Article: What is the meaning of words? » Article: What is the meaning of words?

Article: What is the meaning of words?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Article: What is the meaning of words?

larryn

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/20/09 - 10:24 AM:	#31
jacob7 wrote: So my question still remains. Where is the location of the meaning of words? Why is this so mystical or magical? This is kind of an odd question to ask. Are you looking for a literal location of meaning? Some kind of 'world of forms' where all word meaning comes from? If this is the case, then I think you will be hard pressed to find such a place. Unless perhaps you are wanting to know how concepts exist in the brain, which is an elusive issue even for cognitive science. If this isn't what you are meaning, then it seems that several people on the thread have already answered the question.

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 06/21/09 - 07:20 AM:	#32
jacob7 wrote: So my question still remains. Where is the location of the meaning of words? Why is this so mystical or magical? The meaning of a word is not a property of the word. It is the way that the word is used. Asking "What does this word mean?" is akin to asking "How do you use this word?" and this use is not something that is fixed. The same word (sign) may be used in different ways by different people in different places, at different times and even in different languages.
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 07/26/09 - 12:10 AM: Subject: Philosophy and Traffic Lights	#33
What is the meaning of a red traffic light? Every day thousands of relativists get into a car and stop at a red light. In fact, without having the slightest notion of the magic and mystery of language or semiotics all the car drivers in the world seem to stop when approaching a red light. How can this be when there is no objective truth; when each human experience and perspective is unique and limited? How is it that the mass of humanity can intuitively grasp the true meaning of red traffic light. What is the history and evolution of the meaning of red? What is red? How many shades of red are there? Does Red mean anger, rage, loss. Similar questions must be asked of the evolution of traffic, the frustrations caused and its intrusion into modern life. The connection between light and science, light and truth also demands our investigation. Light is indeed a word of deep mystery and reverence even. Light is the very essence of life thus: "let there be light". Clearly, a rich curriculum could evolve to investigate these words: red traffic light? Plato would have approved of the Traffic light, he would applauded its justice. Descartes would approve of its efficacy. The utilitarians, well they would have invented it. Marx would insist they are tools of oppression and should be eradicated. Nietzsche would insist it was a christian decadence and a blight against man's nobility. Existentialists would mumble something incoherent. But it is the modern language philosopher who would attack the subject with true vigor and discover meanings never before imagined. Light would be shed on the remotest nuance. The student who made this journey would understand "red traffic light" best of all.

Hessian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 08/04/09 - 09:04 PM:	#34
Expressing oneself. What really confuses me is how did definate articles come about? Especially in English since Greek and Slavic did not really have any definate articles I believe.

Hessian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 08/04/09 - 09:10 PM:	#35
yebiga wrote: What is the meaning of a red traffic light? Every day thousands of relativists get into a car and stop at a red light. In fact, without having the slightest notion of the magic and mystery of language or semiotics all the car drivers in the world seem to stop when approaching a red light. How can this be when there is no objective truth; when each human experience and perspective is unique and limited? How is it that the mass of humanity can intuitively grasp the true meaning of red traffic light. Perceptive manipulation. Humans do it unintentionally all the time. You've been indoctrinated to perceive something a certain way, I believe the brain does it to quickly adapt to certain circumstances and generally schlep along with the rest of the humans to simplify things.

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 08/05/09 - 02:45 AM:	#36
Now doubt we are all indoctrinated; our very language is an indoctrination. My point is that we grasp the meaning of a red traffic light by its shape and color; no words are needed to grasp its meaning. It serves as a trigger which registers in our minds a prescription we once perhaps some forgotten time accepted as fact and, for want of a better description, instructed our unconscious to respond to this stimulus for ever more without the effort of conscious thought or words. So if in this instance, words are entirely unnecessary perhaps many other such instances exist. Perhaps words are merely triggers and tools to thought. Wittgenstein amongst many other modern philosophers have posited that without language there is no thought, that what cannot be said does not exist. Intuitively, I feel this to be absurd and that the contrary is much closer to the truth: without the thought a word cannot be formed. Once a thought occurs its author searches for existing words to help retain the thought, to describe it and to simplify its ability to be shared. Eventually through use it and more thought a single new word evolves to help trigger our memory of its complexity and it becomes part of our language. If you like, words work as a kind of catalogue or index of ideas. The meaning of the word is found in our heads when the idea it represents is triggered correctly. If I do not know the meaning of a word, say "sarcasm", I may hear it all day and it will not trigger any thought other than it sounds like ....chasm, perhaps, assuming I am familiar with the word chasm. However, to suggest that I don't actually understand the idea of sarcasm without knowing the word is a step too far. Pre and primary school children are quite capable of exercising sarcasm without any familiarity with the word itself. If questioned why where they saying this or that, I am sure some of them would provide you with a perfect definition of sarcasm. The first word we all probably learn as infants is "mum" Infants are incapable of speech for many months, do they have any concept of the meaning of mum before they can say or understand the word. and when they eventually are able to parrot the word, what does it actually mean to them? I do not think any of us know that answer exactly but I am sure the infant has same vague notion of his mother before any idea of saying mum even springs to mind. Infants cry loudly from the moment of birth, often their crying corresponds unerringly with various demands or discomforts. All pre-verbal infants have this ability to communicate simple demands to their parents. as they have no words to speak, the meaning or ideas they are trying to communicate are clearly disembodied from any alphabet. Is there a reason to suppose that some time later in maturity this same infant will alphabetize all his thoughts? - at least not at a traffic light.

sevenoaks
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 08/20/09 - 10:58 PM:	#37
When I was an infant and still unable to speak I had to negotiate a threshold from the kitchen to the living room and I remember clearly that that threshold had a meaning to me. Monkeys, who don’t have a language to speak off, have developed a fairly complex social behavior when they hunt other monkeys, so I take that language is not vital to imagine, think, communicate. But since people were once such monkeys, without a language, they also had to rely mostly on senses when they contemplated a move, the sense of vision being the most important. Then when language started to appear and take a permanent form, some of the primate intelligence was practiced less often. But most people still rely on visual memory; however, some people can memorize things better when listening. I don’t know if it correlates with musical ability, because I am not melodious. I would imagine that these people, who are good at memorizing by listening or reading, have highly developed language intelligence, if I can call it so. They would have otoh less success with learning by watching. It should be measurable by comparing an assortment of individuals and putting then through a series of specially designed tests. People who can learn by listening may have better developed thinking and can imagine things easier, but that is debatable as thinking preceded speech in the evolution. Visual memory is more effective than audio memory in nature, at least among most mammals. What gives an edge to language is communication, which has nothing to do with thinking, seemingly with organization, also the organization of thinking. So, if language is not connected with thoughts, which are connected with senses, words are meaningless and can not stand on their own. They only have meaning when they are either learned by heart or are a part of the same cognate, with enough morphological similarity to the very cognate that a new meaning can be inferred from grammatical rules.

Tiger Singleton
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2009
Location: Southern Oregon

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 10

Last Blog: PawUpClose.net Update 11.20.09

Posted 09/30/09 - 03:51 PM: Subject: Gooey Semantics	#38
Take notice of how one persons description of gooey, may differ tremendously from another’s experience with the word. One may describe it as soft and mushy, while another labels it as gross and repulsive. Can you honestly define who is wrong? I consider it a serious matter, when thinking upon the implications in creating division within our everyday experience. Professing another is wrong in their action by way of gossip, argument, and thought, creates an illusionary separation as was seen with the gooey semantics. Gooey, is a description not the described. We each offer up an interpretation as we attempt to make sense of a spinning world, in the process our experience creates meaning in our own unique way. Because we see, act, and think differently from one another, we should only expect that others will not operate in a manner consistent with our own perception. What we can be sure of, is they are interpreting the same world. What you see as wrong and repulsive in others, is merely an opposite side of the same coin; an extension of self. The division drives personal pain deeper by acknowledging you are separate from the rest. Accept gooey as perfect with all the opinions that come with it, and remain focused on what you are for, rather than what you are against.
Daily Insight for the Soul... www.PawUpClose.net - home of PAW Daily

Page: 1 2 3 4

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