Meaning: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Meaning » Meaning

Meaning

Page: 1 2 3

Meaning

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5427

Posted 08/16/05 - 09:13 AM:	#11
You're right. In these days of easy grading, few students will dig into a text unless the instructor is more demanding than most. Rarely for personal edification.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

JDavid
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 08/16/05 - 06:22 PM:	#12
The meaning of a linguistic expression is the property that it shares with all its paraphrases. This definition may seem circular since it basically says that the meaning of a linguistic expression is the property that it shares with all the other expressions that have the same meaning. However, this circularity is merely apparent: to have the same meaning (or to be a paraphrase of) is a property that is immediately perceived by the locutor, without it being necessay to define it precisely. If you are an english locutor, you can immediately determine if the following three english phrases are paraphrases (if they have the same meaning): a) I think therefore I am. b) The fact that I think proves that I exist. c) My thoughts are the proof of my existence. Edited by JDavid on 08/16/05 - 06:28 PM

nixnxin
aerialist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: there ->

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 484

Posted 08/16/05 - 06:52 PM:	#13
JDavid wrote: The meaning of a linguistic expression is the property that it shares with all its paraphrases. So the question "where does the meaning of a literary book lie" becomes "where does the property of a literary book, and which it shares with all its paraphrases, lie"?

longsock69
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2005

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 264

Posted 08/19/05 - 06:05 AM:	#14
I think there might be something in the notion that the meaning is more to do with the reader than the text or the writer even; using pictoral examples, when you are in a lazy frame of mind, or for that matter a mind that is unknown to Art...you will not find what is known to the artist or to what he or she is creating... But when you are given a direction or information about a piece of art then the mind suddenly pays attention to it. And likewise with literature, the mind will see and understand whatever it is prepared to understand. Many people have gone back to a book a second time and found that they understand the book in a different light...this means that it is the mind that is brought to the writing that is of importance.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/19/05 - 06:58 AM:	#15
The common use of the term "meaning" denotes the concept the speaker (or writer) intends to communicate (as in "what I mean by that is..." or "I don't know what you mean". That would mean that meaning in a literary book lies with the author. If we wish to veiw it from a more artistic angle, one might say that art occurs when something is framed to be judged aesthetically (like a work of literature), so that artistic meaning lies neither in the author or the reader, but in the relationship between the two.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

nixnxin
aerialist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: there ->

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 484

Posted 08/19/05 - 05:37 PM:	#16
Reformed Nihilist wrote: The common use of the term "meaning" denotes the concept the speaker (or writer) intends to communicate (as in "what I mean by that is..." or "I don't know what you mean". That would mean that meaning in a literary book lies with the author. If we wish to veiw it from a more artistic angle, one might say that art occurs when something is framed to be judged aesthetically (like a work of literature), so that artistic meaning lies neither in the author or the reader, but in the relationship between the two. Isn´t it equally common, or perhaps even more common, that people ask "I don´t know how to write this ...?", or "I don´t know what this text means?"? It is, after all, an actual text which the author attempts to write, and which the reader attempts to read. And, what does "artistic meaning" mean? If the meaning of a literary book lies in the relationship between author and reader, then surely that relationship becomes manifest in the actual text, in the vocabulary and rules, which author and reader attempt to master. Hmm, I still think it seems more reasonable that the meaning lies in the actual text. Or..?

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/20/05 - 09:22 AM:	#17
nixnxin wrote: Isn´t it equally common, or perhaps even more common, that people ask "I don´t know how to write this ...?" I don't get it. This doesn't use the term "meaning". or "I don´t know what this text means?"? It is, after all, an actual text which the author attempts to write, and which the reader attempts to read. I suppose when you take the simplest elements of language, then we could say that the meaning lies in the text. I think the best example would be "What does this word mean?". The problem is that saying meaning lies in the taxt can lead to some strange misinterpretation, as if language had an objective quality, independent of it's communicative value. This is why I chose to answer the question in light of the context, rather than looking for an objective universal. And, what does "artistic meaning" mean? The meaning of a work of art. Art, like language, is a communicational device. The thing about art is that unlike language, the role of the interpreter in determining meaning is much more heavily stressed. With literature, we have the meeting of language and art, so I wanted to point out this distinction before people started mixing up the two. If the meaning of a literary book lies in the relationship between author and reader, then surely that relationship becomes manifest in the actual text, in the vocabulary and rules, which author and reader attempt to master. Hmm, I still think it seems more reasonable that the meaning lies in the actual text. Or..? I don't know if you're suggesting anything that is conceptually different than I am. As a matter of fact, I don't really know what 'meaning' would mean if there was no talk of intent. Withoout referencing the author, I don't know where intent would come from. What exactly are you saying meaning is (for it to lie in the text)?
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

nixnxin
aerialist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: there ->

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 484

Posted 08/20/05 - 08:44 PM:	#18
Reformed Nihilist wrote: I don't get it. This doesn't use the term "meaning". I think it does: a writer may not know how to express a particular belief in words, so he or she asks for how to express it, just like a reader may ask for how to understand it. It seems to me that the answer to both questions lie in the common agreements (vocabulary and rules) of the language, and therefore the meaning of a literary book would lie in the text. I suppose when you take the simplest elements of language, then we could say that the meaning lies in the text. I think the best example would be "What does this word mean?". The problem is that saying meaning lies in the taxt can lead to some strange misinterpretation, as if language had an objective quality, independent of it's communicative value. This is why I chose to answer the question in light of the context, rather than looking for an objective universal. Now I don´t get it. Why would use of a public language mean independence (detached?) of communicative value? The value of a public language is communicative. I´m not referring to some ideal formal system, only to where the meaning of a literary book is to be found. The meaning of a work of art. Art, like language, is a communicational device. The thing about art is that unlike language, the role of the interpreter in determining meaning is much more heavily stressed. With literature, we have the meeting of language and art, so I wanted to point out this distinction before people started mixing up the two. I think you´re forcing a distinction between "art" and "language" which is simply not there. It isn´t consistent, because (1) you say that in literature they melt, and (2) if both "art" and "language" are "communicational devices", then it follows that both are languages; they´re both used as devices for communicating meaning. There are many kinds of languages, for example, notational, verbal, pictorial, gestural etc., and the weight of the role of the interpreter in determining meaning in these cannot possibly distinguish "art" from "language". For example, a picture is syntactically and semantically dense, and may thus allow for many possible meanings or interpretations. But all pictures requiring a heavy role of the interpreter are not art. Art is when something is used as art, and thus communicates meaning as art. You are right in that "artistic meaning" is established in the relationship between users, but I would like to add that all public meaning in all kinds of languages is established in the relationships and agreements between users. Meaning becomes therefore manifest in instances of actual texts, pictures, sounds, gestures etc. I don't know if you're suggesting anything that is conceptually different than I am. As a matter of fact, I don't really know what 'meaning' would mean if there was no talk of intent. Withoout referencing the author, I don't know where intent would come from. What exactly are you saying meaning is (for it to lie in the text)? I think meaning refers to what is open to view, to what is actual, and the meaning of 'refers' is denotation or its converse exemplification. How exactly that works, and what meaning is in general is however too much for now. I´m still learning about that stuff, and might as well recommend a book called 'Languages of Art' by Nelson Goodman, which I found inspiring. Edited by nixnxin on 08/20/05 - 08:50 PM

JDavid
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 08/22/05 - 05:28 AM:	#19
nixnxin wrote: So the question "where does the meaning of a literary book lie" becomes "where does the property of a literary book, and which it shares with all its paraphrases, lie"? I believe that the meaning of a literary book is the property that it shares with all, and only, the other possible literary books (translations or reformulations) that would have the same meaning. Edited by JDavid on 08/22/05 - 05:51 PM

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/23/05 - 12:36 PM:	#20
nixnxin wrote: I think it does: a writer may not know how to express a particular belief in words, so he or she asks for how to express it, just like a reader may ask for how to understand it. It seems to me that the answer to both questions lie in the common agreements (vocabulary and rules) of the language, and therefore the meaning of a literary book would lie in the text. I agree that express and mean can have some conceptual convergence, but they are different words. I think we are discussing how the word meaning is used, not express. If you decide prior to looking at it that mean and express are the same, then you aren't really looking at common uses critically, you are just stipulating. Now I don´t get it. Why would use of a public language mean independence (detached?) of communicative value? The value of a public language is communicative. I´m not referring to some ideal formal system, only to where the meaning of a literary book is to be found. How does the public nature of language infer that meaning lies in the text? Perhaps I don't understand what "meaning lies in the text" means (Oh the irony!). I have no issue with language being public. Even if it is shared by only two people, it is public. How does that shift meaning onto the text? I think you´re forcing a distinction between "art" and "language" which is simply not there. It isn´t consistent, because (1) you say that in literature they melt, and (2) if both "art" and "language" are "communicational devices", then it follows that both are languages; they´re both used as devices for communicating meaning. I'm not trying to force anything, just describe the distinctions I see. In common thought and language there is a distinction between art and language, and literature is where (or at least one place where) the lines get blurry. There are many kinds of languages, for example, notational, verbal, pictorial, gestural etc., and the weight of the role of the interpreter in determining meaning in these cannot possibly distinguish "art" from "language". For example, a picture is syntactically and semantically dense, and may thus allow for many possible meanings or interpretations. But all pictures requiring a heavy role of the interpreter are not art. I think you miss my point. The intent of an artist is to have his work judged (or interpreted) by non-functional criteria. What discriminates art from every other form of communication is that the artist's intent is focused on the process that the interpreter uses, often more than the specific interpretation. Art is when something is used as art, and thus communicates meaning as art. You are right in that "artistic meaning" is established in the relationship between users, but I would like to add that all public meaning in all kinds of languages is established in the relationships and agreements between users. Meaning becomes therefore manifest in instances of actual texts, pictures, sounds, gestures etc. Well of course meaning is manifested in the medium of communication. But the manifestation of the meaning isn't the source or seat of meaning itself. I gave a friend a birthday present the other day. The feeling of freindship was manifested in the giving of the gift. If I were asked "where does freindship lie?" I wouldn't say "in the giving of gifts", but something like "in the relationship between two people" or "in my feelings toward a person". I think meaning refers to what is open to view, to what is actual, and the meaning of 'refers' is denotation or its converse exemplification. How exactly that works, and what meaning is in general is however too much for now. I´m still learning about that stuff, and might as well recommend a book called 'Languages of Art' by Nelson Goodman, which I found inspiring. I don't have any confusion about meaning (as I see it). We can redefine and reuse the word as we please. We can add subtleties as they suit us. But the word meaning, in its most common uses refers to the communicative intent of the speaker. Consider: merriam webster online wrote: Main Entry: 1mean Pronunciation: 'mEn Function: verb Inflected Form(s): meant /'ment/; mean·ing /'mE-ni[ng]/ Etymology: Middle English menen, from Old English m[AE]nan; akin to Old High German meinen to have in mind, Old Church Slavonic meniti to mention transitive senses 1 a : to have in the mind as a purpose : INTEND <SHE means to win> -- sometimes used interjectionally with I, chiefly in informal speech for emphasis or to introduce a phrase restating the point of a preceding phrase b : to design for or destine to a specified purpose or future 2 : to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate : SIGNIFY <A means rain> 3 : to have importance to the degree of <HEALTH means everything> 4 : to direct to a particular individual intransitive senses : to have an intended purpose <HE means well> Notice that all but #3 (which is a totally different sense of the word) make direct reference to intent?
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Page: 1 2 3

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