Language Thread

[qualitas occulta]

God is beyond logic. This is one of the definitions of God.

Please give a source for this.

 

[juvenissun]

Let´s say it has a meaning and it doesn´t have a meaning, then.

It could be a incomplete expression.

"it has a meaning" because ... and "it does not have a meaning" because ....

I would certainly (intuitively) interpret what you said as that.

What you said is meaningful to YOU because you know what you did not say. But it is not meaningful to me because I did not hear the whole story. If I care, I will ask for explanation. If I don't care to ask, then why should you care about my understanding.

As a teacher, I sometimes talk that way. If a student think I talked nonsense and walked away, it would be his loss.

---------

Language is only a tool. A tool can use used in many different ways.

 

[juvenissun]

Please give a source for this.

No source. I said it. You are welcome to quote it.

I am not a philosopher, nor a theologian. I don't need to give "source" to what I said in these fields.

 

[qualitas occulta]

No source. I said it. You are welcome to quote it.

I am not a philosopher, nor a theologian. I don't need to give "source" to what I said in these fields.

The more you are aware that you aren't a source of authority in a field, the more you have you be cognizant of those views that are. I'm not sure if a typo or negatory word got snuck into there but you're basically saying "I don't know much about this subject, so trust me on my word, m'kay?"

I'm not sure which is more nonsensical--the view that you aim to purport or the method in which you purport it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are you implying my statement wasn´t meaningful?

No sorry I just didnt understand it.

 

[quatona]

No sorry I just didnt understand it.

Is it meaningful to you?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If a contradiction is meaningless, then what is the criterion of meaning? Is it "making sense"?

 

[quatona]

Maybe an analogy helps?

You have an audio signal. It produces sound.
You inverse the phase of the audio signal. It also produces sound.
Now you play back the two signals simultaneously: No sound.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is it meaningful to you?

I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning. You said 'maybe, in a colloquial way'. I suppose you mean an informal as opposed to a formal way. Then you post an analogy abourt audio signals, but I think that is even less formal that my comment. So if I have it right, please explain what formal and informal meaning is*, and how this applies to contradictions.

*I would like at least a precise definition of both.

 

[Tinker Grey]

quatona didn't say anything about colloquial, I did. I said that I might say, colloquially, that a contradiction is false. I was applying my comment in that post to your first sentence not the second. Sorry that wasn't clear.

By colloquial I was meaning that in casual conversation I might say that a contradiction is false. I wouldn't in a more formal discussion.

 

[quatona]

I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning. You said 'maybe, in a colloquial way'.

No, that wasn´t me.

Then you post an analogy abourt audio signals, but I think that is even less formal that my comment.

It wasn´t meant to be formal. It was meant to illustrate my understanding.
I thought you might be interested in understanding where I am coming from.
Since you have by and large ignored my other attempts to explain my position, I am tempted to assume that this is not the case.

If however you have any interest in my responses, it might be a good idea to sometimes give me a sign that you have understood them (even though you may not agree with them), or which part you haven´t understood.

I have asked you several times what e.g. what "I did it, but I did not do it" as a whole means. It doesn´t communicate any meaning to me - maybe I´m too stupid or something.

 

[quatona]

I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning.

And I responded:
The meaninglessness of a two part statement prompts us to conclude that at least one if its components are false.

 

[juvenissun]

The more you are aware that you aren't a source of authority in a field, the more you have you be cognizant of those views that are. I'm not sure if a typo or negatory word got snuck into there but you're basically saying "I don't know much about this subject, so trust me on my word, m'kay?"

I'm not sure which is more nonsensical--the view that you aim to purport or the method in which you purport it.

Are you out of mind? Where did I imply that? Shame on you.

It is my idea. If you don't agree, argue about it.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe an analogy helps?

You have an audio signal. It produces sound.
You inverse the phase of the audio signal. It also produces sound.
Now you play back the two signals simultaneously: No sound.

Tell me how do you do that. It is an example of illogical imagination.
I wonder how could you not seeing God.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that wasn´t me.

It wasn´t meant to be formal. It was meant to illustrate my understanding.
I thought you might be interested in understanding where I am coming from.
Since you have by and large ignored my other attempts to explain my position, I am tempted to assume that this is not the case.

If however you have any interest in my responses, it might be a good idea to sometimes give me a sign that you have understood them (even though you may not agree with them), or which part you haven´t understood.

I have asked you several times what e.g. what "I did it, but I did not do it" as a whole means. It doesn´t communicate any meaning to me - maybe I´m too stupid or something.

Sorry, it is your conversation with GS and is not my business. But I just couldn't resist:

It is very very very meaningful. It means YOU WERE NOT YOU when it was done. Go and ask a psychologist whether these few words mean anything.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

quatona didn't say anything about colloquial, I did. I said that I might say, colloquially, that a contradiction is false. I was applying my comment in that post to your first sentence not the second. Sorry that wasn't clear.

My apologies for the confusion then.

By colloquial I was meaning that in casual conversation I might say that a contradiction is false. I wouldn't in a more formal discussion.

The only logic i have studies in this regard says contradictions are false. That would be propositional logic, and truth tables relating to conjunctions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have asked you several times what e.g. what "I did it, but I did not do it" as a whole means. It doesn´t communicate any meaning to me - maybe I´m too stupid or something.

Well what do you expect to be there for a meaning to be there? I am not sure how well the concept of meaning is defined actually, but we might do well to look at what is thought to be necessary and sufficient for a phrase to be meaningful. So please give us some criteria...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And I responded:
The meaninglessness of a two part statement prompts us to conclude that at least one if its components are false.

You can say that but I would like to see it argued from premises. Maybe you have axioms that I don't?

 

[quatona]

Well what do you expect to be there for a meaning to be there?

I would like you to answer my first question first: which meaning it communicates to you?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would like you to answer my first question first: which meaning it communicates to you?

I do not have a rigorous definition of meaning to back this up, but I feel if someone says "A and not-A" then that phrase means precisely what it says i.e. A and not-A.

For instance if someone says "I have a doctorate in logic but I am not particularly gifted at it" I can understand the meaning of the sentence, even if she is contradicting herself. Are you saying that if this sentence implies a contradiction then you do not actually understand what is being said?