The reference is the Wittegenstein.

All that I'm saying is what happens if I take a modern text - a novel, a scientific treatise, a poem, etc. - and take it back 2,000 years into the past and ask the people then to translate it: plane = iron bird? :chin:
— TheMadFool

If a scholar from 2,000 years ago hypothetically somehow had the tools to translate future language into their current language, then I suppose anything would be possible, given those parameters, so then the gravity of the hypothetical question would completely disintegrate, rendering it laughable. This is why I hate these stupid, uncreative thought experiments (P-zombies, et al; take no offense please). — Noble Dust

When you're right, you're smart. When others are right, they're stupid. A common affliction. Join the club.

You mean to say that the word "computer" existed in Babylonian/Egyptian times? I don't think so.
— TheMadFool

Indeed. "Think" — VincePee

Sorry, I didn't catch your drift. Can you expand and elaborate. Thanks.

No, that's Wittgenspear.


...or was it Shakenstine?

Of that which is a portmanteau, one must be uncertain.

Sorry, I didn't catch your drift. Can you expand and elaborate. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Drift? What does that mean? The word computer didnt exist but who says no one computed?

Meaning isn't use. That one can assign different meanings to a word doesn't, in any way, imply that all there is to words is how we use them.

Well, you sound offended; I didn't mean to offend you.

The word computer didnt exist but who says no one computed? — VincePee

We're on the same page. Nothing to discuss.

Well, you sound offended; I didn't mean to offend you. — Noble Dust

So? Everybody gets offended about something. BTW, thanks for not wanting to displease me.

P-sha, I get instantly offended by logging on to the forum. :party:

We're on the same page. Nothing to discuss. — TheMadFool

I think I'm a few pages ahead...

P-sha, I get instantly offended by logging on to the forum. :party: — Noble Dust

:ok:

I think I'm a few pages ahead... — VincePee

That you think you are is not the same as you are.

That you think you are is not the same as you are. — TheMadFool

I have to think about this one...

Wittgenstein's question: How do you know that what you think of as french grey doesn't slowly change in your mind... so that what you thought french grey on one day is different the next? — Banno

I'm certain it does change; I hadn't been aware of the greenish verision until earlier today. I'm not sure I can endorse "no common agreement"; rather there is no binding agreement as to what it is in any given conversation. We could probably arrive at it by a process of exclusion. It's certainly the color all the other colors are not and everytime I've requested it I've been presented with something some one identified as french grey. It's an observable phenomena so Wittgenstein wouldn't deny it exist, but I'm not certain he would believe it's a real color.

It's almost the reverse of the issue of whether we see the same duck-egg blue. And asks whether we expect to see the same color. I suppose a less ethereal subject might make for a better test. What do you call all the indescribable things? What type of box do they fit in?

TheMadFool
That you think you are is not the same as you are.
— TheMadFool

I have to think about this one... — VincePee

Don't waste your time...

Don't waste your time... — TheMadFool

Good advice. I'll write it on my wall. For when I wake up.

@Banno

What about color spectrum gradient? Let's get off the religiousic Witty high horse for a minute and realize that color exists on a gradient more fine than language does. Who's going to argue for one exact color gradient that the phrase "French Grey" defines? Come on now boys.

Good advice. I'll write it on my wall. For when I wake up. — VincePee

:lol:



Go to sleep!

ay, there's the rub:

The meaning is the use. — Banno

Agreed, partially. The linguists if they're out there might say, 'yeah guys, you're talking about pragmatics' and be confused there's any confusion. But just as the baby boomers took for granted post-war prosperity, maybe we take for granted Austin, et al.

The meaning's the use, but then why are some things usable in this way, and not other ways?

Say: I want to mess with my friend: I know If i use this word, it'll have one effect, and if I use another it'll have another effect. I choose what words to use based on how I understand their meaning.

To use, you already have to know what stuff means. (and stuff 'means' on all sorts of levels) So meaning can't simply be use.

To use, you already have to know what stuff means. (and stuff 'means' on all sorts of levels) So meaning can't simply be use. — Arcturus

Yes.

I'm certain it does change; — Cheshire

Being certain is easy. Any fool can be certain. Demonstrating that your notion of French grey doesn't change - that'd be interesting.

Who's going to argue for one exact color gradient that the phrase "French Grey" defines? — Noble Dust

My point, exactly.

Say: I want to mess with my friend: I know If i use this word, it'll have one effect, and if I use another it'll have another effect. I choose what words to use based on how I understand their meaning. — Arcturus

...but no, you are choosing one use over another use; that being the effect it has on your friend.

Wittgenstein's law: It doesn't take long before any discussion on language in philosophy begins to turn into a discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

...but no, you are choosing one use over another use; that being the effect it has on your friend. — Banno

My example wasn't very good. I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to say is : Yes, I'm using one word for a specific use - for its effect on my friend - but why do i choose this word versus another? I may want to elicit a reaction, but I'm constrained - in seeking to elicit a reaction, I know one word rather than another will work. . Words have histories and some words will hum and vibrate whether you want them to or not. A good writer is attuned to this, just as a good carpenter understands the grains and whorls in the wood. He doesn't impose fully - he has a general idea going forward, and adjusts to what's there. I'm saying meaning is like that. It's partially use, partially not.

Stand-up comedians are hyper-attuned to the valences of words, for example. They don't invent their acts out of scratch - they're attuned to the emotions and vibrancy of the semantic field and navigate it. You know what I mean?

Take a great prose stylist like Cormac McCarthy or Don Delillo or Marilynne Robinson. They're masters - but they're masters using words that preceded them. The only way they can have the effect they have is to recognize the potencies words have in ways other can't, and then to rearrange them in new ways. If they invented out of scratch how would they communicate? It hits because its shared.

We're always meaning by using stuff that already means, no way around that without dipping into dogmatism.

If its sentences are meaningful, then it is. The OP talks about description. Description is related to meaning, not to aesthetic expression.

It's partially use, partially not. — Arcturus

Madhyamaka or not quite. I think Banno will have a good laugh. Playing with yourself, are you?

Wittgenstein's law: It doesn't take long before any discussion on language in philosophy begins to turn into a discussion on Wittgenstein. — TheMadFool

That's true in anglophone settings. Beyond that, nobody cares about him.

Wittgenstein's law: It doesn't take long before any discussion on language in philosophy begins to turn into a discussion on Wittgenstein.
— TheMadFool
That's true in anglophone settings. Beyond that, nobody cares about him — Olivier5

Oh! Updating my files! Gracias!