| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Anthony G. Rubino" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 08:30:04 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Thinking |
To Sleepyheed, continued:
You said:
I agree that there is some play in the
meanings of words and of sentences:
Our current argument shows that. The
fact remains however that words do not
mean /only/ what one wants them to
mean: one's mental intentions may have
something to do with determining the
meanings of one's utterances, but if one > says "*****!" instead of
"Hello!" most
people will take this as an insult, not a
greeting, regardless of any mental
accompaniments you might happen to
have before, after and/or during your
utterance.
The critical assertion in this paragraph is: 'words do not mean /only/
what one wants them to mean:', with which we both generally agree. No
further explanation is needed, - unless we want to discuss the
psychology of word selection, the relationship of conscious and
unconscious factors, the complications of the extent of experiences, the
circumstances in which it is uttered, etc. That's only from the point of
view of the speaker, which is the one emphasized in the paragraph,
though the (mis) understanding of the recipient is indicated. But the
mental context of the listener is equally important, and has the same
complications. Enumerating examples of mis-communications is only
tangentially relevant to the discussion of language, which sits between
the speaker and recipient, and somehow mediates all of these
complicating factors.
If we are trying to discuss language, as language, then we should focus
on how
it performs this function. What meanings are being mediated in any
particular example is secondary to how language mediates those meanings.
That is one of the most general frames of reference in which it can be
discussed. and it is from the most general frame(s) of reference from
which I tend to view things. To shift from a general frame of reference
to any particular one requires sometimes drastic changes in meanings.
For example:
1) If we shift from the particular frame of reference implied by the
context of the quoted paragraph to the more general frame of reference
of language as language. and,
2) if we explore one of the critical functions of language within that
frame of reference from the perspective of the mediation of meanings,
Then:
3) the critical assertion of that paragraph, with which we both agreed
in that context, is no longer acceptable in this one.
I assume you would want, and expect, some explanation. I do believe that
it could stand on its own, and, I am tempted to leave it as is to see
what kind of responses it would get, but I will provide brief
explanation.
In a general frame of reference of language as language, the 'mediation
of meaning' is one of a number of functions of language that could be
considered. What is true with regard to this function is not necessarily
true with regard to all functions of language. I am focusing on this
function because it is the one exemplified in the quoted paragraph under
discussion.
If words are mediating meanings (whatever those meanings are), then the
words themselves (as mediators) have no meaning of their own, and the
critical assertion: 'words do not mean /only/ what one wants them to
mean', is not acceptable because it atributes meanings to the words.
Another way to state that is:
Words as words, and, language as language, have no meaning of their own,
but have meaning only when they are interpreted or evaluated.
For example:
The words in a book on a shelf in any language have no meaning until
someone reads the book.
The words in a dictionary have no meaning until they are used. They were
put in dictionary form to represent the common ways that they are used.
Words represent thoughts.
Thoughts represent meanings.
The word is not the thought.
The thought is not the meaning.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
| User: "SleepyHeed" |
|
| Title: Re: Thinking |
18 Mar 2006 06:51:09 AM |
|
|
The critical assertion in this paragraph is: 'words do not mean /only/ what one wants them to mean:', with which we both generally agree. No further explanation is needed, - unless we want to discuss the psychology of word selection, the relationship of conscious and unconscious factors, the complications of the extent of experiences, the circumstances in which it is uttered, etc. That's only from the point of view of the speaker, which is the one emphasized in the paragraph, though the (mis) understanding of the recipient is indicated. But the mental context of the listener is equally important, and has the same complications. Enumerating examples of mis-communications is only tangentially relevant to the discussion of language, which sits between the speaker and recipient, and somehow mediates all of these complicating factors.
OK. Well I agree that words can be misunderstood and that
misunderstandings can arise for a large number of reasons, some of
which have to do with the mental state of the people using the language
(which is, I think, what you're driving at).
I think I know what you mean when you talk about language being a
mediator, but I'm not sure I entirely agree - I tend to view the vast
majority of mudane utterances as a kind of musical dance accompanying
our actions, one which doesn't necessarily have a great deal to do with
communication but with the routine we're engaged in. But it's a minor
point - I agree that there are occasions when we use language to
communicate.
If we are trying to discuss language, as language, then we should focus on how it performs this function. What meanings are being mediated in any particular example is secondary to how language mediates those meanings. That is one of the most general frames of reference in which it can be discussed. and it is from the most general frame(s) of reference from which I tend to view things. To shift from a general frame of reference to any particular one requires sometimes drastic changes in meanings.
For example:
1) If we shift from the particular frame of reference implied by the context of the quoted paragraph to the more general frame of reference of language as language. and,
2) if we explore one of the critical functions of language within that frame of reference from the perspective of the mediation of meanings,
Then:
3) the critical assertion of that paragraph, with which we both agreed in that context, is no longer acceptable in this one.
I assume you would want, and expect, some explanation. I do believe that it could stand on its own, and, I am tempted to leave it as is to see what kind of responses it would get, but I will provide brief explanation.
I'll just interject here if I may. I agree. If we're interested in how
language and meaning are related, how they interact, or how language is
the vehicle of meaning it isn't informative simply to answer "Language
means what it does because we use it in a certain way". You'd have to
say a lot more about this 'certain way' for starters, or provide an
explanation of the mechanism whereby use of language creates meaning.
In a general frame of reference of language as language, the 'mediation of meaning' is one of a number of functions of language that could be considered. What is true with regard to this function is not necessarily true with regard to all functions of language. I am focusing on this function because it is the one exemplified in the quoted paragraph under discussion.
If words are mediating meanings (whatever those meanings are), then the words themselves (as mediators) have no meaning of their own, and the critical assertion: 'words do not mean /only/ what one wants them to mean', is not acceptable because it atributes meanings to the words.
Another way to state that is:
Words as words, and, language as language, have no meaning of their own, but have meaning only when they are interpreted or evaluated.
For example: The words in a book on a shelf in any language have no meaning until someone reads the book.
The words in a dictionary have no meaning until they are used. They were put in dictionary form to represent the common ways that they are used.
OK. I would say you're perhaps being a bit literal-minded about the
phrase 'words do not mean /only/ what one wants them to mean' (although
cf. our previous comments regarding philosophy and nit-picking for
justification for doing so!). I tend to use this phrase as a metaphor,
not as a proposition which actually attributes meaning to words
independent of users of those words - cf. my comments about
misunderstandings above.
I think I understand what you're saying about words and meaning in
general - that symbols aren't symbols unless someone's there to bring
them to life (another metaphor). I'm not too clear about my next bunch
of thoughts, but here goes.
I don't agree that the words in a book mean nothing until someone's
using them (although that point is well-made against the view that
meaning is usage). On the other hand I think that saying "The words in
a book on a shelf have meaning even when nobody's reading the book"
simply amounts to saying that most or all of the symbols in a book are
in general use elsewhere, and those symbols in use elsewhere don't stop
having being used simply because one stops using the symbols that occur
in that particular book. That is - I don't mean that the words /have/
the meaning even though the English grammar of the sentence says that
I'm predicating meaning /of/ the words.
Words represent thoughts.
Sure, I'll buy that as long as you don't have a pictorial theory of
representation in mind.
Thoughts represent meanings.
OK, that I don't agree with.
The word is not the thought.
Sure:
A thought can be a word, but not vice versa.
A thought can consist of words, but not vice versa.
But I would say these are merely language-game rules.
The thought is not the meaning.
.... sorry, the meaning of what? You've lost me!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Thinking |
18 Mar 2006 03:31:33 PM |
|
|
To SleepyHeed, who said:
I think I know what you mean when you
talk about language being a mediator,
but I'm not sure I entirely agree - I tend
to view the vast majority of mudane
utterances as a kind of musical dance
accompanying our actions, one which
doesn't necessarily have a great deal to
do with communication but with the
routine we're engaged in. But it's a
minor point - I agree that there are
occasions when we use language to
communicate.
It can be a tricky subject to deal with. We are examining the structure
and function of language in order to get a better understanding of its
structures and functions. and we are using language to do it. We are
using language to examine language as well as using thoughts to examine
thoughts.
To do that we are de-constructing it to examine its composition (its
parts) and the relationships between those parts (the 'stuff' that holds
it all together). In doing so, we could gain a better understanding of
how it works, and, hopefully, we might
also gain enough understanding to re-construct a better language.
We're taking it apart to see what makes it tick. We could do that out of
simple curiosity, and still learn something. If we are then unable to
put the parts back together, we would at least learn that just taking
things apart could make them non-functional (what we started with is
broken). If we can put it back together again, not only did we get a
better understanding of how it works, but we could also get some ideas
for improvement.
Just as a driver does not have to know how a car works in great detail,
neither do the users of language.
So far, we've de-constructed language into two parts, structure and
function. We've paid little or no attention to its structure. We have
concentrated on its functions almost exclusively, and on only one of its
functions: communication. Another function implied by the analogy of
books is the function of memory, or storage, through which language is a
repository of collected knowledge. Without language, there would be no
books. Without books, we would be constantly re-inventing the wheel.
From this perspective it makes some sense to say that books, and words
have meaning, but it is a loose use of language, not worth quibbling
about, except in a discussion such as this. To be more technically
correct, we could distinguish such a storage meaning, that simulates, or
stores the 'real' meanings, or we could do it in other ways by referring
to such meanings as 'pseudo' meanings, easily confused with the 'real'
thing.
Hopefully this will help you resolve the other disagreements you raise
in this post. It might raise others too. I'll give you time to think
about it before trying to proceed.
FWIW
I never analyzed language in this way in great detail. In one sense I'm
winging it. But, I am drawing on my experience and intuitive insights
from which I built my philosophy. I have faith in the outcome.
I was also a pretty good mechanic, among other things, and I set up a
re-habilitation program teaching business machine repair. Taking things
apart, putting them together, and making them work, is one of the better
learning experiences, especially for philosophy. At least you learn that
if it doesn't work, you did something wrong. I see it as an analogy to
de-constructing and re-constructing any theory.
For example: Consider Hume's position.
He took apart the causal relation, found the parts of constant
conjunction, but could not reconstruct the causal relation that he
started with. He broke it, but couldn't fix it. He couldn't do it, so
he excused himself by doubting that it could be done.
No matter how much education anyone has, or how many PhD's they may
acquire, they can still learn more by watching kids grow, play, and
graple with problems. Fortunately, I have not yet lost my ability to do
so.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SleepyHeed" |
|
| Title: Re: Thinking |
20 Mar 2006 05:04:46 AM |
|
|
It can be a tricky subject to deal with. We are examining the structure and function of language in order to get a better understanding of its structures and functions. and we are using language to do it. We are using language to examine language as well as using thoughts to examine thoughts.
Yeah - that's the part that usually gives me a headache, especially
when we come to trying to explain the workings of words which have no
obvious physical referent. Sometimes I'm inclined to agree with LW that
all we have to do is arrange the facts we already have in the right
order and it'll all make sense. Sometimes, though, the 'right' order is
exactly what's under dispute!
To do that we are de-constructing it to examine its composition (its parts) and the relationships between those parts (the 'stuff' that holds it all together). In doing so, we could gain a better understanding of how it works, and, hopefully, we might also gain enough understanding to re-construct a better language.
We're taking it apart to see what makes it tick. We could do that out of simple curiosity, and still learn something. If we are then unable to put the parts back together, we would at least learn that just taking things apart could make them non-functional (what we started with is broken). If we can put it back together again, not only did we get a better understanding of how it works, but we could also get some ideas for improvement.
Just as a driver does not have to know how a car works in great detail, neither do the users of language.
Sure.
So far, we've de-constructed language into two parts, structure and function. We've paid little or no attention to its structure. We have concentrated on its functions almost exclusively, and on only one of its functions: communication. Another function implied by the analogy of books is the function of memory, or storage, through which language is a repository of collected knowledge. Without language, there would be no books. Without books, we would be constantly re-inventing the wheel.
From this perspective it makes some sense to say that books, and words have meaning, but it is a loose use of language, not worth quibbling about, except in a discussion such as this. To be more technically correct, we could distinguish such a storage meaning, that simulates, or stores the 'real' meanings, or we could do it in other ways by referring to such meanings as 'pseudo' meanings, easily confused with the 'real' thing.
Hopefully this will help you resolve the other disagreements you raise in this post. It might raise others too. I'll give you time to think about it before trying to proceed.
I think I almost agree with you (once more!). Depending on how picky I
want to be I either whole-heartedly approve of the idea of
language-as-memory (or computer-storage if you prefer), or have a
sneaking suspicion that all is not quite right with it.
It's not that I can't see how a book can teach you things if you read
it carefully - I'm teaching myself to write counterpoint at the moment
from a most excellently written book. So clearly I don't have a problem
with the idea that processes, procedures, techniques, knowledge and
what-have-you can be passed down via written media (or recorded media,
and so on).
On the other hand there's a certain slippage to language and to human
thought in general. For example - Middle English isn't quite 18th
century English, isn't quite 21st century English - pronunciations of
individual words, and the meanings of individual words change over
time. Now that of itself isn't necessarily a problem for us providing
we can trace how words have changed over time (i.e. providing we have a
good etymologist on hand). But the thing that really rankles me about
this slippage is that it also appears to apply generally to human
practice. For example; methods which might have seemed perfectly
sensible to a 16th century alchemist could still be learned (there are
at least a small selection of alchemic works extant), but the sense of
doing so, the meaning of the practice (its relationships to other
practices and to other beliefs current at the time) would mostly seem
to be lost to us. There are two sorts of sense, one might say, "what a
sentence means", and the sense - the point - of saying it. It seems to
me that it's the latter kind of meaning that gives life to the former,
but that doesn't seem to be saying much more than "Humans use symbols
and that usage changes over time". [ pause for breath ]. Soooo ... in
terms of "pointing to the location of them meaning" when talking about
where the meaning of words lies I think there's something can be said
for either pointing to ourselves, or pointing to a book. I don't think
I'd want to call either of these locations the 'real' meaning partly
because I think debating which of two options is the 'real' option is
one of the more pointless aspects of analytical philosophy, but also
because I think we first have to give sense (i.e. a point) to the idea
that meaning has a location (even if that location is a mental
location).
FWIW
I never analyzed language in this way in great detail. In one sense I'm winging it. But, I am drawing on my experience and intuitive insights from which I built my philosophy. I have faith in the outcome. I was also a pretty good mechanic, among other things, and I set up a re-habilitation program teaching business machine repair. Taking things apart, putting them together, and making them work, is one of the better learning experiences, especially for philosophy. At least you learn that if it doesn't work, you did something wrong. I see it as an analogy to de-constructing and re-constructing any theory.
For example: Consider Hume's position. He took apart the causal relation, found the parts of constant conjunction, but could not reconstruct the causal relation that he started with. He broke it, but couldn't fix it. He couldn't do it, so he excused himself by doubting that it could be done.
No matter how much education anyone has, or how many PhD's they may acquire, they can still learn more by watching kids grow, play, and graple with problems. Fortunately, I have not yet lost my ability to do so.
That's true enough; I also like taking things to bits, but latterly
I've also taken up the art of building things (musical things in this
case). What that's taught me is that the kinds of hypotheses one makes
when taking something to bits in order to put it back together again
sometimes do not have much relation to actually putting things in that
order in the first place. Or, to put it more concretely - a book about
musical composition (i.e. writing) is more about general rules of thumb
which one follows to create something which is an expression of
oneself, whereas a book about musical form (structure) is concerned
with simply categorising the results so produced in order to make some
kind of general sense out of what already exists. With language we are
both creator and categorisor - but in analytical philosophy of the kind
I studied (Anglo-American philosophy) the side of the argument that
tends to win is the categorisor / theorisor side. Which is fine as far
as it goes, but sometimes it can develop some very odd ideas about how
things work. (And sometimes we try to justify these odd ideas by saying
things like "This is how things /actually/ work").
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ipcress" |
|
| Title: Re: Thinking |
17 Mar 2006 09:42:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Anthony G. Rubino wrote:
Enumerating examples of mis-communications is only tangentially relevant
to the discussion of language, which sits between the speaker and
recipient, and somehow mediates all of these complicating factors.
What if a language sitting between speaker & recipient is designed not to
facilitate certain matters?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Thinking |
17 Mar 2006 11:06:35 PM |
|
|
To ipcress, who asks:
What if a language sitting between
speaker & recipient is designed not to
facilitate certain matters?
I don't understand the question. What would such a language be designed
to do?
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
