Meaning: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Meaning » Meaning

Meaning

Page: 1 2 3

Meaning

nixnxin
aerialist

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

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 484

Posted 08/24/05 - 05:36 AM:	#21
Reformed Nihilist wrote: 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. You misunderstand my example; I´m not discussing the word 'express'. In my sentence: "a writer may not know how to express a particular belief in words..." the writer´s belief is the source of meaning, or the content of a meaning. The writer knows the content, but not how to write it in the form of a public meaning. Therefore he or she will look in dictionaries, or for examples in other books, or talk about the content with other people until he or she finds the best way to express the content in the form of a public meaning. This is my argument for why the meaning is in what is open to view. There is nothing unusual about a search for the right words; one may know what the meaning is without knowing its public version. And when one has looked it up, and made it manifest in the form of a public sentence, as actual inscriptions, then the meaning is there, in what is open to view. We can´t claim what the writer intended, nor speculate about what he or she might have had in mind, unless we have evidence for our claims, and evidence is what is open to view. My position can be labelled 'extensionalism', where the definition of the word 'meaning' is reference to what is open to view. The dictionary definition of 'meaning' only describes how the word is used. Like JDavid suggests above, I agree that the meaning of a book is a property exemplified in a book. Exemplification is coextensional, transitive, and the property can therefore be shared with other books, paraphrases etc. Even a film based on the meaning of a book may thus exemplify the same meaning.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

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

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/26/05 - 11:46 AM:	#22
Please re-read my original post. I said: 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")* and you disputed that. Now you say: The dictionary definition of 'meaning' only describes how the word is used. Do you see a problem here? I am not saying that you are wrong in concept, just that your explanation doesn't describe the sense in which the word is used. If you want to stipulate that for the purpose of this conversation meaning refers to a property of a piece of language, go ahead. It doesn't change anything. Without more clarification on the intent of the original question (which is very vague) wouldn't you assume that the standard, accepted use of the word was correct? Clearly if "meaning" describes a form of intent, and if intent always lies within the indiviual then meaning must lie within the individual. It's pretty straight forward.
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 08/26/05 - 07:25 PM:	#23
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Please re-read my original post. I said: 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") and you disputed that. Now you say: The dictionary definition of 'meaning' only describes how the word is used. First, then please re-read my reply to your original post. Second, we´re discussing where the meaning lies; not how the word 'meaning' is commonly used. your explanation doesn't describe the sense in which the word is used My explanation describes why the meaning of a literary book lies in the text. if "meaning" describes a form of intent, and if intent always lies within the indiviual then meaning must lie within the individual. It's pretty straight forward. If it always lies there, then it must lie there, is pretty circular.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

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

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/29/05 - 07:07 AM:	#24
First, then please re-read my reply to your original post. OK. I said: 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. You replied: Isn´t it equally common, or perhaps even more common, that people ask "I don´t know how to write this ...?" I was confused because this made no reference to the use of the word meaning, yet it seemed to be an argument against my claim about the common use of the word. Second, we´re discussing where the meaning lies; not how the word 'meaning' is commonly used. As there is no geographical location to meaning, I must assume that what meaning means defines where meaning lies. If meaning means the "the light at the top of a skyscraper", then it lies at the top of a skyscraper. Meaning actually means "to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate " which also tells us where it lies: the speaker. My explanation describes why the meaning of a literary book lies in the text. Actually, your expanation describes why a linguistic concept that is similar to the word meaning lies in the text. I think the term public meaning would be more accurate. As I say, if you want to stipulate that for the purposes of this conversation meaning refers to public meaning, go right ahead. Just be aware that you don't equivocate it with the commonly used term. nixnxin wrote: If it always lies there, then it must lie there, is pretty circular. P->Q P Therefore Q Also very circular. Does that mean it's incorrect? I provided good reasoning for interpreting the question in such a way that the common use of the word was sensible to examine. I provided evidence that hte common use of the word was as I claimed. I provided clear logical explanations to describe my conclusion. Calling clear-cut logical implication circular is pointless.
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 08/30/05 - 07:17 AM:	#25
Reformed Nihilist wrote: As there is no geographical location to meaning, I must assume that what meaning means defines where meaning lies. That makes no sense: to say that the meaning lies nowhere, yet somewhere, is a blatant contradiction. Surely the question of this thread, 'where...', asks for a location: with the writer, with the text, or with the reader. If a dictionary definition of the common use of 'meaning' is the intent of a writer, then it doesn´t follow that the location of the meaning of a literary book is with the writer. The intent of a writer might as well be his of her ability to comply to the language, and thus the meaning would lie with the language, or the text. If you think meaning lies somewhere else, or nowhere, then you should provide an argument which is consistent.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

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

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/30/05 - 08:12 AM:	#26
nixnxin wrote: That makes no sense: to say that the meaning lies nowhere, yet somewhere, is a blatant contradiction. I didn't say it lies nowhere. I said it didn't have a geographical location. I was pointing out the fact the "where" is used metaphorically in this context, as meaning is not an object. Surely the question of this thread, 'where...', asks for a location: with the writer, with the text, or with the reader. If a dictionary definition of the common use of 'meaning' is the intent of a writer, then it doesn´t follow that the location of the meaning of a literary book is with the writer. Like I said, the question was vague so I think it is fair to assume common usage. Do you disagree that intent lies with the writer? If so, then we can discuss that. It does very clearly follow that if intent lies with the writer, and meaning is a specific type of intention, then meaning lies with the writer. It is a clear case of implication as I interpret it. I assume that you agree that implication is logical, so it must be the interpretation you disagree with. Can you clarify on that disagreement? The intent of a writer might as well be his of her ability to comply to the language, and thus the meaning would lie with the language, or the text. This is not consistent with the definition of meaning. The intent of the writer is for the reader to understand a concept. This may be achieved by complying to rules of a language (or breaking them in some cases), but that is not what his intent is, it is just the tool used to achieve that intent. If you think meaning lies somewhere else, or nowhere, then you should provide an argument which is consistent. Rather than telling me to provide a consitent argument, you might want to simply point out perceived inconsistentcies. I find this sort of rhetoric distasteful and distracting from the issues at hand.
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 08/30/05 - 03:56 PM:	#27
Reformed Nihilist wrote: I didn't say it lies nowhere. I said it didn't have a geographical location. I was pointing out the fact the "where" is used metaphorically in this context, as meaning is not an object. Then I will remind you of your own words: As there is no geographical location to meaning, I must assume that what meaning means defines where meaning lies. If meaning means the "the light at the top of a skyscraper", then it lies at the top of a skyscraper. Meaning actually means "to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate " which also tells us where it lies: the speaker. There you claim that the meaning of the sentence "the light at the top of a skyscraper" lies at the top of the skyscarper. That is definitely a 'geographical' location. You also claim that the meaning lies with the speaker, which is at another 'geographical' location, just like a listener (or reader) lies at in yet another location, as well as the texts they exchange. Now are you still going to claim that "there is no geographical location to meaning"? It is evidently inconsistent. And what on earth makes you think the word 'where' is used metaphorically? Do we have to look in a dictionary for the common use of the word 'where' to know what that 'fact' is you speak of? And, meaning is indeed an object when we speak about its whereabouts. That´s how our language works. The dictionary definition says meaning is intent, located in minds, and the question of this thread asks for in which mind: the writer´s, the reader´s, or in the language with which different minds think and communicate. Your reference to the dictionary is thus irrelevant: we can still ask where the meaning lies. Like I said, the question was vague so I think it is fair to assume common usage. Do you disagree that intent lies with the writer? If so, then we can discuss that. It does very clearly follow that if intent lies with the writer, and meaning is a specific type of intention, then meaning lies with the writer. It is a clear case of implication as I interpret it. I assume that you agree that implication is logical, so it must be the interpretation you disagree with. Can you clarify on that disagreement? It is not a vague question, and you are the only participant in this thread complaining about it. Your wish to reformulate the word 'where' as merely 'metaphorical', and your selective interpretation of the dictionary definition of the common use of 'meaning' (which is neither a definition nor form of argument of where meaning lies) to make the original question fit your particular belief is ideology; not philosophy. If you want you can open up a new thread where your point of departure would be "Do you disagree that the intent lies with the writer?". But then you have merely by-passed the philosophical discussion with a selective interpretation of the definintion of the use of the word 'meaning'. That is not the same as a discussion about the definintion of where 'meaning' (as the word is commonly used) lies. A definition is a statement. It is not a discussion nor a form of argument regarding its subject matter. This is not consistent with the definition of meaning. The intent of the writer is for the reader to understand a concept. This may be achieved by complying to rules of a language (or breaking them in some cases), but that is not what his intent is, it is just the tool used to achieve that intent. It is not consistent with the definition of 'rhinoceros' either, and other irrelevant definitions. Your dictionary definition is a statement; it is NOT a form of argument telling us where meaning would lie. You are not discussing the question, and evidently attempt to move the goal posts to a discussion about meaning itself. You can´t speak of intent unless you have common signs. Therefore the meaning we can speak of lies in the common signs. Rather than telling me to provide a consitent argument, you might want to simply point out perceived inconsistentcies. I find this sort of rhetoric distasteful and distracting from the issues at hand. I did point out the inconsistencies. Your claim that there is no geographical location to meaning is inconsistent with your claim that the meaning lies with the speaker. My 'rhetoric' was neither distasteful, nor distracting from the issues at hand. If someone here is using rhetorics in its distasteful sense it is you and your use of the word 'geographical', and your selective interpretations of the words 'meaning', and 'where'.

nixnxin
aerialist

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

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 484

Posted 08/31/05 - 05:51 AM:	#28
As an attempt to write in a more neutral and concise way, I hope this message can help clarify my position, as well as help our conversation to become more meaningful. For example, if you ask where the intent of a speaker lies, then the question already defines the answer: for intent is per definition in the mind, and that which is in the mind of a speaker lies with the speaker. So if the question defines the answer, then it cannot be a genuine question. To understand meaning as intent puts it with the writer. To understand meaning as interpretation puts it with the reader. To understand meaning as an effect of our ability to use a language puts it in the texts. In my opinion meaning must lie with the language; for without it there would be neither intent nor anything to interpret. I don´t know if you think this is a fair way to understand the problem, but it seems like a reasonable way to me.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

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

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 08/31/05 - 01:12 PM:	#29
nixnxin wrote: As an attempt to write in a more neutral and concise way, I hope this message can help clarify my position, as well as help our conversation to become more meaningful. I think this is a good idea. I will adress the points brought up in this post. For example, if you ask where the intent of a speaker lies, then the question already defines the answer: for intent is per definition in the mind, and that which is in the mind of a speaker lies with the speaker. So if the question defines the answer, then it cannot be a genuine question. I think this is where we disagree. I don't know why you would say that it is not a genuine question. If a term has a common meaning, and there are implications in that common meaning that I am not aware of, then it is a genuine question to ask about those unknown implications. It is a useful revelation to make explicit what is implicit in the common definition. It is a genuine answer to a genuine question. To understand meaning as intent puts it with the writer. To understand meaning as interpretation puts it with the reader. To understand meaning as an effect of our ability to use a language puts it in the texts. In my opinion meaning must lie with the language; for without it there would be neither intent nor anything to interpret. Why do you say there would be no intent without language? Intent would not be expressed or communicated without language, is what I would say. I can have the intent to communicate something, but never get the chance. Intent describes a mental state, and although most higher mental states are language reliant (because of the nature of our cognitive processes) they are not necessarily all, always reliant on language. I don´t know if you think this is a fair way to understand the problem, but it seems like a reasonable way to me. I think it's a fair enough way to approach the problem, but I don't think it is the only reasonable way. I think that sometimes we avoid the easy answers because we like the challenge, but sometimes the easy answers are the most appropraite and efficient ones. Without feedback from the original questioner, we cannot know for certain if my answer or yours is more appropriate. Edited by Reformed Nihilist on 08/31/05 - 01:43 PM
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 09/06/05 - 06:21 AM:	#30
Hi, I´m back. If a term has a common meaning, and there are implications in that common meaning that I am not aware of, then it is a genuine question to ask about those unknown implications. It is a useful revelation to make explicit what is implicit in the common definition. It is a genuine answer to a genuine question. To reformulate the question to make one answer seem more right is to make it into a leading question. Leading questions are not genuine questions. According to the dictionary the word 'meaning' is used for intend as well as signify. Signify makes no particular claims about mental states. So, when you draw implications from one single dictionary definition, ie. intend, you´re not making explicit what would be implicit in "the" common definition; for there is evidently not only one common definition. Also, in philosophy there are many theories of meaning; not one. I prefer to use 'meaning' as in signify, because it is neutral regarding the nature of mental states. That which is open to view signifies. Why do you say there would be no intent without language? Intent would not be expressed or communicated without language, is what I would say. I can have the intent to communicate something, but never get the chance. Intent describes a mental state, and although most higher mental states are language reliant (because of the nature of our cognitive processes) they are not necessarily all, always reliant on language. Even if you don´t get the chance to express, I suppose your intent or mental state is in some sense a truth value of a sign in our language. If not, then how could you even speak of having an intent in the first place? ... I think that sometimes we avoid the easy answers because we like the challenge, but sometimes the easy answers are the most appropraite and efficient ones. Without feedback from the original questioner, we cannot know for certain if my answer or yours is more appropriate. I think understanding the meaning of 'meaning' as reference to what is open to view is a lot easier, appropriate, as well as more efficient than speculations about the nature of mental states.

Page: 1 2 3

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