TimeSeeker wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:28 am
You said: Inventing language allows expression.
You also said: Language requires shared meaning.
You also said: All language is meaningful.
I invented "grobmunf".
You admitted that you can't determine if it's language or not.
So - did I invent language or not? If 'grobmunf' is not language then what is it?
If 'grobmunf' is not language then am I expressing myself?
When I wrote "inventing language allows expression" I was following your lead. That's the first step in considering another's position. I was merely using what you had already invoked... the notion of inventing language. That said...
If "grobmunf" is a part of a correlation you've drawn between it and something else, then it is meaningful. I've said this already. If another person shares that meaning, then it is also the case that that person has drawn the same or a similar enough correlation between "grobmunf" and whatever else your correlation consists of.
If "grobmunf" is not part of a plurality of thinking/believing creatures' correlation(s), then it is not language. It can still be an elemental constituent of one's thought/belief. It can still be meaningful. If "grobmunf" is not language, then if you use it in a normal manner, you're still expressing your own thought/belief, for "grobmunf" is a part of that.
Here's the curious thing by my lights...
We are - here and now - involved in a metacognitive endeavor. There are some thought, some belief, some meaning. and some presupposition of correspondence that is prior to language, and thus cannot be existentially dependent upon neither language nor our account here.
What exactly is the difference between what you say meaning is, and how you say it works and your account thereof?