For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Because you are asking misleading questions in your own mental muddle. You are even using the word "meaning" in two different senses! You mean different things when you use the word "meaning"!creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:59 pm I've asked a number of questions that you've neglected to answer directly.
Look in the mirror. All the things you've said during this interaction cannot possibly be true at the same time and from the same perspective:creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:43 pm Meh...
Evidently you've run out of bullshit to say...
Adios!
You just expressed it. In language.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:52 pm Here's an account of thought that cannot be expressed in language...
A language-less creature cannot express it's thought/belief in language. That creature's thought/belief can be properly taken into account. Taking account of a language-less creature's thought/belief requires language. What's being taken into account does not require being taking it into account. Our knowledge of it does.
When we are reporting upon non-linguistic thought, we are not expressing it... we're expressing our own thought/belief about it. To say otherwise would be to conflate our report with what we're reporting upon.
Yes, that's what follows from what I've said. There's no self-contradiction in anything I've written. Some meaning is prior to language.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:48 pmLook in the mirror. All the things you've said during this interaction cannot possibly be true at the same time and from the same perspective:creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:43 pm Meh...
Evidently you've run out of bullshit to say...
Adios!
1. All thought/belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
2. All language is meaningful.
3. If "grobmunf" is a part of a correlation you've drawn between it and something else, then it is meaningful
4. If "grobmunf" is not part of a plurality of thinking/believing creatures' correlation(s), then it is not language.
Grobmunf is a word that I have invented to express a thought. By rule #1 it is meaningful.
Nobody else understands what 'grobmunf' means so by rule #4 it is not language.
So 'grobmunf' is meaningful but it is not language?
Some or all?creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:00 pm Yes, that's what follows from what I've said. There's no self-contradiction in anything I've written. Some meaning is prior to language.
I expressed my own thought/belief. I did not - cannot - express my drake's thought/belief. I can offer an account of it. Do you not know the difference?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:54 pmYou just expressed it. In language.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:52 pm Here's an account of thought that cannot be expressed in language...
A language-less creature cannot express it's thought/belief in language. That creature's thought/belief can be properly taken into account. Taking account of a language-less creature's thought/belief requires language. What's being taken into account does not require being taking it into account. Our knowledge of it does.
When we are reporting upon non-linguistic thought, we are not expressing it... we're expressing our own thought/belief about it. To say otherwise would be to conflate our report with what we're reporting upon.
Naturally! Which is me affirming it when I said "You take the 1st person perspective". I do too.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:02 pm I expressed my own thought/belief. I did not - cannot - express my drake's thought/belief. I can offer an account of it. Do you not know the difference?
Some. Yes, I can.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:00 pmSome or all?creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:00 pm Yes, that's what follows from what I've said. There's no self-contradiction in anything I've written. Some meaning is prior to language.
If some. Can you give me an example of meaning that is a posteriori language?
Please do - so I can calibrate my understanding to your use of the word.
So then you've set out the term "expression" as capable of being sufficient and/or insufficient. On my view, if X is insufficient for Y, then X is not Y. Let X be expression. Let Y be language.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:18 pm My use of the word 'expression' hinges on shared meaning (which is the same as your use of the word 'language'). Or rather - the process by which individual meaning BECOMES shared meaning e.g how ideas become language.
If I express myself but I am the only one who grasps what it means. It's insufficient.
Therefore 'expression' is isomorphic to 'BECOMING language'. For the word 'grobmunf' to BECOME language. I have to TEACH you my meaning.
And once I have successfully TAUGHT you my meaning, then you can assert that what I really mean by 'grobmunf' is a penguin.
People have the NEED to label their experiences. If I acquire an experience first hand then I need to give it a name.
Seeing a grobmunf (what everyone else calls a 'penguin') is a totally new experience TO ME. And until I find somebody to TEACH ME that it's not an 'original idea' by pointing me to other knowledge, then I can be none the wiser either....
Similarly. Until somebody first understood what Einstein was all about and when a bunch of physicists understood and DETERMINED that this is ACTUALLY a "new and original idea" - he wasn't expressing himself effectively!
Mathematical isomorphism... "different ideas" can be the same thing in different words.
That's not very well put... actually.creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:25 pm To be clear, I'm not interested in satisfying a Kantian concept. I've already said why I reject that(a priori/a posteriori) as a result of inadequacy and how that's the case. I am more than capable of offering an example of meaning that is existentially dependent upon language.
Whenever a plurality of creatures draws correlations between the same or similar enough things.