According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". — Samuel Lacrampe
According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful". — Samuel Lacrampe
To say that words have meanings is the same as to say that words point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe
According to you, "Only words that are nouns are meaningful".
— Samuel Lacrampe
I said no such thing. — Banno
I just read back, looking for this quote, or words that reflect it, and found nothing. Did Banno really say this, or did you make it up? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word [...] But there isn't, of course. — Banno
Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"? — Banno
Nouns refer to things, real or otherwise. Lots of other words do not. — Banno
A minor misunderstanding. — Samuel Lacrampe
To say that words have meanings is the same as to say that words point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe
Which is not an answer, unless you think "No" points to a state of mind; but that would seem pretty hard to defend."No?" In this context, it has the same meaning as "do you disagree?", which can be a real state of mind. — Samuel Lacrampe
The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word [...] But there isn't, of course. — Banno
Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"? — Banno
You have made this claim several times. Each time I have denied it, and several times I have provided counterexamples of words that do not just refer to 'beings'. — Banno
Perhaps, as Mr Ninja suggested, we should clarify what we mean by 'being' and 'thing'. A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing.Adverbs, verbs, adjectives, conjuncts...[don't refer to things] — Banno
I agree; but I also claim that the act of denying, the state of being surprised, and state of disagreement are all beings. E.g. I would never know what the word 'surprise' means if I had never observed a person in that state before. What I observed could not have been nothing.It seems to me to be much simpler to point out that "No" has several uses, including denying what has been previously claimed, and expressing surprise or disagreement. — Banno
I agree with this. Many words have the same meaning (synonyms); and many meanings have the same word (homonyms).There is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since the meaning will change from one use to another. — Banno
But there is a thing, a being, as defined in my previous post. To side with philosophers like Aristotle and Hume, we apprehend meanings by observation. And to observe is to observe something.Further, there is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since meanings are not things. — Banno
A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing. — Samuel Lacrampe
A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe
I am using the term as used by Aristotle, Aquinas, and the rest of the scholastic crew. Admittedly, you are right that the meaning is mostly associated with the term 'thing' in common language. I just think using the term 'being' makes you sound like a boss. :cheer:A being is a living thing; a thing may be living or not. As you say, "thing" is the most general term, while being is more constrained (to living things). — Pattern-chaser
Correct. And this is the main point of the OP; that words that have the potential to be ambiguous should be defined at the start of the discussion. And once established, the definitions should stay the same for the remainder of the discussion.But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning if the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers. — Pattern-chaser
The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? Note that talking about its light wavelength would not cut it; because that is not its meaning in the common language. Even before people knew about wavelengths, they knew the meaning of the word 'blue'.Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. — Pattern-chaser
In this case, the meaning of 'X-ray' in the common language is the same for you as it is for everyone else: an electromagnetic wave of certain wavelength or something. But this is different than the meaning of 'blue' for a blind man versus a sighted man.I know the meaning of X-ray, although I will never sense one directly, as I don't have that ability. — Pattern-chaser
But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning of the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers. — Pattern-chaser
Correct. And this is the main point of the OP; that words that have the potential to be ambiguous should be defined at the start of the discussion. — Samuel Lacrampe
There is not one thing that is the meaning of a word, since the meaning will change from one use to another.
— Banno
I agree with this. Many words have the same meaning (synonyms); and many meanings have the same word (homonyms). — Samuel Lacrampe
Perhaps, as Mr Ninja suggested, we should clarify what we mean by 'being' and 'thing'. A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing.
Under such a definition, words such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and conjuncts still point to beings. — Samuel Lacrampe
A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe
Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. — Pattern-chaser
The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? — Samuel Lacrampe
Yes, the sky need not be completely blue, and there may be multiple shades, all referred by the word 'blue'. But both cases have some portion of blue, which makes the statements true. If the sky for a particular day was completely orange, then the statement would be false. If meanings did not have some essential properties, then how could we differentiate true from false statements?The sky is blue, but not all of it, and not the same shade f blue — Banno
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. It is either true or false that you perceive the porterhouse, smoked bacon, and pad thai as 'salty', used as one common meaning. If true, then indeed the flavours must have one thing in common, even if the flavours are not exactly the same, inasmuch as there are different shades of blue. It may be true that the porterhouse, bacon, and pad thai are more salty than avocados; inasmuch as the colours turquoise, aqua, and azure are more blue than the colour orange.Take salty: an adjective which points to a flavour. I had a porterhouse yesterday that had been salted on one side before cooking. It had little in common with the salty smoked bacon I had for breakfast, nor with the Pad Thai; indeed, that saltiness is complimented with umami, a taste I could not name apart from "salty" when I was a child. What is the being these have in common? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.