Yeah, it has some similarities to "you can't step in the same river twice," although it's not exactly the same as that. At any rate, what were the same reasons? (Sorry if I should be remembering something you said. I have a crap memory sometimes.)creativesoul wrote:If this is anything similar to not being able to step into the same river twice, I reject it for the same reasons...Terrapin Station wrote:I don't remember if it was you that I had started a conversation about regarding this, but I don't agree with this view. Meaning is "incorrigibly mental" on my view and can't be made external-to-mental. Yet we have language, so language isn't contingent upon shared meaning. We can't know (by acquaintance, at least) that we have similar meanings in mind (it can't literally be the same, because of nominalism).creativesoul wrote:Agreed. Language is existentially contingent upon shared meaning.
So what's really going on?
No doubt, I'm one of the others...mickthinks wrote:Like Terrapin Station (and no doubt, others) I have no idea what "getting beneath language" might refer to.
My apologies if I haven't, because I thought I'd already touched upon that. Aside from another author who I've been wanting to engage, but keep forgetting, nothing since my earlier comments bear upon them aside from your recent comment about "glosses". "Glosses" is something appropriately said about another author's explanation when it's too vaguely/ambiguously written. Such an explanation 'glosses'(or not) by virtue of failing to take account of the crucially relevant/germane parts/aspects/facets/nuances/etc. of any given subject matter. Generally speaking, "glossing over" a topic is unacceptable.
Setting out a criterion which - when met - furthers our understanding of that which is existentially prior to language isn't rightfully described by "glosses it as..." So, although I fail to see any meaningfully appropriate justification/warrant for your use of the term "glosses", hopefully it's inconsequential to the bigger picture.
I offered a criterion adequate for meaningful progress. Meaningful progress isn't a bad thing. This all deserves more attention...
I think so, but in addition to the above concern, the invocation of "phenomena" would inevitably lead us astray if used too strictly. I do not use such a framework. All this in mind, there are also plenty of reasons to suppose that we are on the same page.The OP glosses it as discussing what non-language phenomena language is "existentially contingent upon", and assuming ""existentially contingent" means "would not exist without...", my response would be these:
Am I at least on the same page as you, cs?
- an enduring and somewhat consistent environment, among whose repeating phenomena are ...
- ... a community of language-capable beings,
- and passage of sufficient time
As it is, the candidates you've offered do count as necessary and sufficient preconditions for the existence of language. That's good meaningful progress in the right direction. It would be interesting to set out what the second requires(take proper account of the second) by virtue of setting out it's set of necessary and sufficient conditions, which include the other two.
Welcome, thanks, and I look forward to your reply.