Can you swim, dance and play tennis?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Can you swim, dance and play tennis? » Can you swim, dance and play tennis?

Can you swim, dance and play tennis?
When can you rightfully use the words.

Can you swim, dance and play tennis?

Maxvilly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 210

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:14 PM: Subject: Can you swim, dance and play tennis?	#1
I had an arguement with one friend over the words "being able to swim". I said I can't swim, and survive if I get dropped done in the sea, as I only manage 75 yards before my arms start to become weak. I said I wanted to take up swimming, but he stated I could indeed swim, and we got in to this meaningless arguement of the definition. Where do we draw the lines. Technically being able to swim, being able to swim? Having a bachelors in swimming. Anyway. The same could be said for other things, teenis, dancing, golf, being a philosopher. Like to hear opinions. Peace out. Johan
I had details here, ones.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4158

Posted 07/02/09 - 08:10 PM:	#2
You could have said, "OK, I can only swim 75 yards" and avoided the meaningless argument over the definition. Also, if was a meaningless argument, why are you asking us to provide answers? Just kidding, but my little joke also serves the purpose of pointing out that context is important. People often define words willy nilly and seem to get by just fine doing that. I could say, "He's a bad swimmer!" but if I were talking about a world champion you might understand me to mean he's tough to beat. In a court of law insanity has a specific meaning while psychologists do not use the term and in the vernacular it can mean just about anything including merely stupid. Hence, the meaning of words can change dramatically depending upon the context and may even not be listed in any official dictionary definition. The only empirically proven linguistic theory is Relational Frame Theory and its basic assertion is that words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. That is not to say they don't have any other meaning, just that the only demonstrable meaning they have is dependent upon their function in a specific context. Perhaps whenever I say "swim" to you the word means among other things "shark" (go, go, go...) but I can't know this unless you demonstrate it somehow.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 07/02/09 - 08:14 PM:	#3
Offhand guess: being able to swim comes in degrees, and context determines when it's appropriate to call you a swimmer. So in general, you can swim to degree x; for playing in a pool, x is enough; for playing in the Olympics, x is not enough.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 07/03/09 - 02:21 AM:	#4
This isn't going to help much, but perhaps in addition to the context wuliheron mentioned and the catagories incision has provided, I would add that presuppositions play a role in the definition. Context, catagory and presupposition build the connotation of a concept or word or what have you. The dennotative meaning of being able to swim cannot really be established as the "being able" part is a subjective perspective and valuation. Such elements have no place in a dennotative meaning. It is easier, perhaps, to nail down a dennnotative meaning of an object or a thing, as opposed to an action, such as swimming. A chair can be defined in many a connotative and subjective perspective, but it remains "that" chair and not "another" chair. The "thatness" of an object or a thing builds perhaps it's dennotative meaning. Everything else are descriptive connotations from a subjective perception and a valuation of the item in question, thus a presupposition. I'll have to look it up, but Dun Scotus in the 13th century wrote something to this extent and named the "Dunce Cap" after him sometime in the 16th century. I'd say that is something to be proud of. His influence on Heidegger was very important, especially in separating his thoughts on Phenomenology from those of Bergson. Meow! GREG Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

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