"Hello". Look at what is going on here, not at what you expect. It does not refer to greeting; it is a greeting. — Banno

Ok, yes, I agree with you here, but again, I never meant to say that referent equals meaning. Maybe I phrased something badly? (If I did, what is that? Is it a case of bad use, or incorrect meaning? :P )

That's not to say that words that don't refer don't mean anything, only that there's more to meaning than referring to things. — Srap Tasmaner

Right, I don't think I was saying that meaning equals reference. It seems that you and Banno might be moving the goal posts here? My main argument is about meaning. I brought in referents as part of my argument; maybe that part of my argument isn't as strong. I take your criticisms in stride. But that's not the thrust of my argument.

Why not say that use is what gives words life? Obviously, the words that die are those that are no longer used. — Banno

Again, I'm not un-fond of Wittgenstein. But I don't fully buy his ideas. But I'm probably less educated than you on language. I'm working through my ideas. Are you saying "use" and "meaning" are synonymous, or are you saying that "use" is more accurate than "meaning"? For instance, I think that use is determined by meaning. The concept of use doesn't supersede the concept of meaning. I can argue, for instance, that use is situational in relation to meaning. The use of the word "together" could refer to a romantic couple, a sandwich (bread and cheese together), a family reunion, sexual intercourse...use of the word "together" varies, but it's meaning is a broad concept that connects it's separate uses. We see connections across the disparate uses.

to what does "Hello" refer? — Banno

It refers to the acknowledgement of another human being.

I think I can see it from your view. But I still disagree. Do you disagree that every word has a referent? If a word has no referent, it tends to die off. That, to me, suggests that meaning carries the "lives" of words; meaning is what gives words life. When meaning ends, a word dies. It's referent is no longer relevant.

As far as special pleading, I don't think it applies to meaning. I'm not avoiding the fact that the word meaning doesn't have a concrete definition, I'm underlining the fact that meaning as a concept is the metaphysical basis for language, if language is to have any use at all.

What does "...unless" reference in that sentence? Are you assuming that my argument is invalid "...unless"?

As far as what meaning means, that's the beauty of meaning. It's self-referencial. It's not a metaphysical concept to be defined by reason, but rather the basis of metaphysics in general. Everything needs a referent. We can't use the English language on this internet forum without meaning. If we can't define meaning, as you so coyly suggest, then we can't debate. It's really not complicated.

If language is a tool we mean things with, then it's conceivable we could mean things with something else. If you're saying there's nothing else we can mean things with, you'd need to argue for that.

Unless it turns out you were defining the word "meaning" here as "what we do with language." Then you could save the tool talk, I guess: "meaning" would mean "using the tool language." On the other hand, how informative would such a definition be? — Srap Tasmaner

This is fairly well what I was arguing, Banno.



Agreed.

Not to be a broken record, but, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the fact that the meanings of words change over time is key in this discussion, I think. A word carries a different meaning depending on what historical moment it's used in. Words are the husk in which the seed of meaning is carried.

What was your reply? I must have missed it. — Banno

Here:

I don't think words representing what we mean is equal to statements being the whole of language. If you're talking about "the whole of language", how does meaning being a function of language (what I interpret your argument to be) better deal with that whole? — Noble Dust

It is misguided to take statements as the whole of language. — Banno

I don't think words representing what we mean is equal to statements being the whole of language. If you're talking about "the whole of language", how does meaning being a function of language (what I interpret your argument to be) better deal with that whole?

Creative and I have had much the same discussion for years. Do I know you of old, Nobel Dust? — Banno

So you're saying that because we don't know each other, but you and creative do, my argument's aren't worth your time? lol. But who's this Nobel guy?? Alfred "Dusty" Nobel??

I've read some of Investigations, but these days I'm not so into it. I was asking for your thoughts, not reading recs.

Can you elaborate? I disagree; I say language is what we do with meaning.

Right. So how is meaning an action?

Counting, and meaning, are the action; number, and language, the tool. — Banno

I was thinking of number as a concept; quantity, not number(s). So Counting and language would be the action, meaning and "number" are the catalyst of the action. After all, numbers are just representations of quantity. Language seems to be a representation of meaning.

Wouldn't the proper analogy here be "Is number prior to counting"?

Prior is a tricky word, but I would argue that meaning is "inside" or "the driver of" language. The meanings of words change, which I think is evidence for meaning being "located" within language, or a catalyst for language. Consider other forms of expression, like art forms for instance. Creating art is driven by a need to express; the content of that expression comes after the fact, but the expression is prior. Language works the same way. Human experience is a situation in which we need to express things, and so language comes after that fact as a fulfillment of a requirement. But other forms of expression also exist.

Ambient anathema:

So let's see - on the one side, we have the fervently religious, who are determined to save their societies, and on the other you have punk-ass kids who like to have lots of sex and play video games and don't give a fuck about their world — Agustino

I know many "fervent atheists" who are "determined to save their societies". I don't agree with them, but I respect their fervor, and find it lacking in more of (but not all of) my Christian friends.

I'd go so far as to say a religion which doesn't foster community (people together) isn't worth having or saving — Bitter Crank

Most major religions have always had an ascetic component, practiced to varying degrees. I personally have trouble with both concepts; I see value in each.

Out Of all the new atheists, he probably annoys me the least. I appreciate that he practices meditation, that he doesnt seem to have much of an ego, and I respect that he's been cogently and politely critical of Islamism (I'm not sure all of his arguments hold), but other than that, it's just more flash in the pan religio-atheism, as far as I can tell. Of course, his ideas might take hold and continue to influence western thought, for as long as it's around.

I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Yes, many...

Obviously the simple fact is that fictional characters are not real physical people. But the ideas that fictional characters express, and the way an audience interprets their experience of that character exists in the same way that an audience's interpretation of their experience of real people (John Lennon, Ghandi, Dostoevsky) exists. The idea of Harry Potter and the way audiences interpret him have measurable effects on culture and changes that occur in culture in the same way that famous (real) cultural icons have measurable effects on culture and changes that occur in culture. Real cultural icons are "characters" within a cultural narrative. They become symbols of cultural ideas in the same way that fictional characters do. The actual experience of the audience is less black and white than an ontological analysis would assume. And ideas exist within experience, not within an ontological metaphysic.

For me:

Notes From Underground by Dostoesvky. I was a clueless, impressionable college freshman when I read this in Honors English. It seriously fucked up my blissful, conservative Christian world. Our prof was notorious for giving terrible grades (to these students who thought of themselves as "honors" students), and looking back, he was actually right. Most of the students didn't actually want to engage with the difficult material he gave us; they weren't writing papers that actually engaged the material. He always said "I want you to learn how to think clearly". Anyway, Notes is kind of an exposition of self-consciousness within the context of the ever-increasingly impersonal modern world. It's the individual versus society; the Underground Man detests society but desperately hates himself for his inability or unwillingness to engage with it. Or at least, that's what I remember from it. I need to re-read it.

The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton. This is my favorite novel. It's utter genius, but you'll either love it or hate it. The philosophical aspects are hard to explain without basically giving away the story. What I love about this book is how many different ways you can interpret it. It's clear that, as a Christian, Chesterton is illustrating what he sees as the virtues of order and religion, versus what he sees as the self-refuting nihilism of anarchy (a real political movement at the time). But there's some truly beautiful surrealism and an addictive nightmare-quality to the entire narrative which pre-dates surrealism as an artistic movement. You can also interpret the narrative as a kind of "turning-inside-out", where surface appearance gives way to true reality. It almost has a mystical quality to it. There's also some totally confounding ways to interpret how Chesterton portrays God. And I almost forgot, the novel is also absolutely hilarious (if you've read any Chesterton, then you know what I mean).


Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis. This is Lewis's last and greatest fiction work. It's just pulsating with sorrow and regret and spiritual ennui. It's a retelling of the myth of Cupid and Psyche, told from the perspective of Psyche's ugly older sister Orual. Nothing like anything else he wrote. Again, without giving up the key plot points, this is probably the deepest interrogation into the nature of The Divine that I've read in fiction form. It was a transformational read for me. "I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words."

Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot. This is a long-form poem, about 60 pages or so. Not fiction. It's Eliot's masterpiece, to me. Not quite as arcane as The Wasteland. You really just need to read it, slowly, several times, over the course of a few years, preferably out loud. Only in sittings as long as you're able to ingest the words. I'm still slowly beginning to understand this poem, and I probably will continue to study it for the rest of my life.

“So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years-
Twenty years largely wasted, the years of l'entre deux guerres-
Trying to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholy new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate,
With shabby equipment always deteriorating
In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate - but there is no competition -
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”

No, John said:

But, the law is based on the principle, which is certainly held to be true, that we are all equal before God, don't you think? — John

Which I'm agreeing with.

John said "being equal before God", which is what I was referencing.

Well it may either be true, or it may be useful. The law isn't necessarily held around true principles, but rather around useful ones. — Agustino

I get the sense of that, but how does this apply to a law that's assumed to be divine? A law that's not necessarily true, but is useful, is, necessarily, human. How could a divine law be untrue but useful? At least within a Christina paradigm.

Yes.

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool

Why do theists exist? Why do they claim the higher rational ground? Emotional bias. Same as the atheists.

But, per theists, also historical etymology of belief.

And within historical context, the atheistic position, bolstered by science, is the fresher, newer view. So the atheistic view is, in a way, pubescent. It has that same awkward certainty to it.

What comes next? What's the university phase of human thought?

1. Is nothing part of everything? — wax1232

Nothing is simple lack: "Do you have two dollars on you?" "No, I don't."

To say that nothing is a subset of everything is to ignore the context of the word "everything", or even the word "something".

Sorry if my comment sounded dismissive, but I was commenting on the specific post of yours before mine; saying things like "we're all Frodo Baggins if we choose to be" sounds more dismissive than argumentative, which is what I was referring to.

Are you making an argument? I honestly can't tell.

I'm not sure what you mean by "definition of the person". — John

It corresponded to your phrase "what people are".

It's common enough to say that people are defined by what they do. — John

I'm not sure I buy this notion. So it's common; so what? Defined in what way? Sometimes actions aren't visible; it may be true philosophically that actions determine motives, but only visible actions determine how someone is defined by the community or the society. Actions not seen (or "non-actions") can reveal just as much about a person...except for the fact that those actions aren't seen.

But I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're not right. — Noblosh

How does that work?

Btw, I don't have those numbers, but do you? Totally curious.

I agree. My argument in this tread, since the beginning (since page 2! which you dutifully dredged up) has not been political; my argument has been ethical.

you're really into porn, aren't you??? Like, you don't want to let it go...as in...you can't admit the first step...right...

That might have been misinformation. How does it relate to the topic, considering that you dredged up page 2 out of 16, from however long ago? Your underlining of my bad argument does not a good argument of yours make.

Porn is the same, I look at it every so often but it's not a obsession, there's probably only a small percentage of people that are porno-maniacs, most of us can self-regulate. — Sivad

You base your personal assessment of porn use off your personal use of coke, then?

I'm not in favor of banning stuff just because a small minority can't control themselves. — Sivad

Agreed.

What arrangement? Hitler had his arrangement of belief. Pol Pot. Ad absurdum.

what people are is determined by what they believe. — John

So the definition of the person is based on belief? (sorry, I thought I responded to this thread)

I don't get it, you really want me to educate you on addiction and porn industry?
But I lack the required authority. — Noblosh

Case closed, then?

Are those rhetorical questions? — Noblosh

Mine isn't.

I think it's a win-win. — Noblosh

How?

Album cover and name are better than the record itself. But still nostalgic, for me, anyway. For fans of early Pink Floyd, and...90's pop?....

If you think I'm wrong you should give me studies to refute my argument and drive home my ignorance. — Noblosh

As you've conceded by your response, my point is that there are none; or, rather, the only "studies" are those done by groups with a stake in the claim. I find this meaningful when making blanket statements about the state of the porn industry.

I don't even get the perception that the porn industry is forceful but I get that it can be overbearing and inconsiderate. — Noblosh

The difference being?