Paradoxical statements show that language is meaningless.

[phsyxx]

Ok.
I probably won't be able to explain this fully, and I understand there will always be conflicting views and opinions, but, before you read this, please be open to the possibility.

A paradox is an example of a statement which loops itself to infinity.
Star Trek has done it, and this riddle is a good demonstration of this principle.

"A prisoner is about to be sentenced to death. The exectioner in charge of the operation has been told to give the prisoner one last option- to show the corperation's good will, even to those who have commited heinous crimes.
The option is to either be hanged or shot.
If the statement of the prisoner is true, he will be shot, if it is false however, he shall be hanged."

Pretty quickly the prisoner was let go.
Why was this?
Well.....to avoid making you work it out, the prisoner says-
"I shall be hanged."

There is no truth or falsity to this statement, as the truth of it depends on the scenario.

Another example of this is.

1.) Number two is true.
2.) Number one is false.

How is this possible? How can they both be true? How can they both be false?
Eventually, one comes to the conclusion that they are utterly meaningless.
This is because the words, and their meanings are being used in a context which means that their application- what is usually understood as their meaning- is faulty.

Take for example a frenchman that cannot speak english.
These words written here mean nothing to him. They are essentially meaningless.
Then, take for example a blind person- they cannot see these words written here, and are therefore meaningless.

Words are not pre-existent entities, they are merely inventions of man as a means of communication, a general consensus between a group of people as to what they mean- and when told "you are using that word incorrectly", it can only be true if the same language rules are being applied to both people.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

1.) Number two is true.
2.) Number one is false.

How is this possible? How can they both be true? How can they both be false?

This has nothing to do with language, but rather with logical construction. The language isn't a problem. The problem is that 2 conflicting ideas were thrown into a single concept. A paradox appears to be created when reality dictates that both conflicting ideas must in fact be true. Paradoxes are really only a confusion of the mind due to presumption. Impatience in thinking causes presumptive conclusions which then lead to conflict due to the errors involved.

Eventually, one comes to the conclusion that they are utterly meaningless.
This is because the words, and their meanings are being used in a context which means that their application- what is usually understood as their meaning- is faulty.

I disagree that it is an issue of their meaning, but as you pointed out, their usage, but the usage of logic was the issue, not the usage of the words.

Words are not pre-existent entities, they are merely inventions of man as a means of communication, a general consensus between a group of people as to what they mean- and when told "you are using that word incorrectly", it can only be true if the same language rules are being applied to both people.

This is because by definition (of the word) "incorrect" in this context, means "not by the agreed upon standard."

Correct usage of anything can only mean correct by some agreed standard. It has nothing to do with incorrect logical use when referring to such things.

"Incorrect logic" only applies to logical concerns and "incorrect word usage" only refers to whatever standard was presented for agreement.

Logic is not really man made and thus there is no agreement needed so as to set a standard. Many people today in an effort to mix up the world more will profess that logic is simply an old traditional invention of man, but their argument is seriously flawed and fails terribly.

I'm not sure where you intended to head with this.. ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Another example of this is.

1.) Number two is true.
2.) Number one is false.

How is this possible? How can they both be true? How can they both be false?
Eventually, one comes to the conclusion that they are utterly meaningless.

What do you mean by "meaning" here? Does something have to be true to have meaning? Or does it have to be cogent to have meaning? Or does it have to be useful to have meaning? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Merlin]

The meaning of your communication is in the response you get.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The meaning of your communication is in the response you get.

I wish this were even more true.

Actually most of the time the response you get only appears to have the relevent meanings you intended.

 

[Gracchus]

This "paradox" is discussed in a beginning logic course.

If #1 is true then #2 is true.
If #2 is true then #1 is false.
Therefore: If #1 is true then #1 is false.

If #1 is false then #2 is false.
If #2 is false then #1 is true.
Therefore: If #1 is false then #1 is true.

The paradox arises because your premises are self referent with respect to truth. It has been proven that there are always statments whose truth cannot be determined in any consistent logical calculus. Even if we resort to a "meta-language" which is to say a separate language to talk about statements in the first language, we will find statements whose truth cannot be determined without recourse to a meta-metalanguage. Eventually this leads to infinite recursion.

Strangely enough, this "Incompleteness Theorem" has been proven.

If anyone is really interested in the subject, I would recommend "Gödel. Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

Or follow the link to "Kenny's Overview of Hofstadter's Explanation of Gödel's Theorem" at http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html

Be warned that the concepts are not for the faint of mind.

 

[ebia]

If anyone is really interested in the subject, I would recommend "Gödel. Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

One day I'll get around to finishing it.

 

[StrugglingSceptic]

This "paradox" is discussed in a beginning logic course.

If #1 is true then #2 is true.
If #2 is true then #1 is false.
Therefore: If #1 is true then #1 is false.

If #1 is false then #2 is false.
If #2 is false then #1 is true.
Therefore: If #1 is false then #1 is true.

The paradox arises because your premises are self referent with respect to truth. It has been proven that there are always statments whose truth cannot be determined in any consistent logical calculus.

This is not strictly true. Some formal systems can decide all statements in their language (formal Euclidean geometry, for instance). It is only those consistent theories that prove a sufficient amount of arithmetic which are necessarily incomplete.

 

[phsyxx]

What do you mean by "meaning" here? Does something have to be true to have meaning? Or does it have to be cogent to have meaning? Or does it have to be useful to have meaning? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

If it is possible for conflicting meanings applied through sentences- for example the paradoxical statement above- it shows that language only has meaning to the extent that it is a general consensus shared by people to express/ or an applied term for an object.

Therefore language is an invention.

Therefore language is essentially meaningless unless applied in the manner which the consensus understands it.

For example:
What time when the two four of the blah blah is it that you could fly with geese on the moon wherefore; be two mine?

The above statment only makes sense to the extent that it is written in English, and follows some rules of English.
If I were to discard English, it's alphabet, all rules of all language- then I truly would be speaking gobble-de-****.

Language is not solid, not definite and not entirely accurate.

Therefore to me, God is beyond language.

 

[Merlin]

>The meaning of your communication is in the response you get.

I wish this were even more true.

Actually most of the time the response you get only appears to have the relevent meanings you intended.

It's a powerful concept though.
It means you can continue doing the same thing
over and over, expecting different results,
or
if you wish to communicate, you can adapt yourself in communicating, until you get the response you seek.

 

[Gottservant]

Ok.
I probably won't be able to explain this fully, and I understand there will always be conflicting views and opinions, but, before you read this, please be open to the possibility.

[...]

Words are not pre-existent entities, they are merely inventions of man as a means of communication, a general consensus between a group of people as to what they mean- and when told "you are using that word incorrectly", it can only be true if the same language rules are being applied to both people.

"Paradoxical statements show that language is meaningless"... I would add "for people who use language meaninglessly". You imply that meaninglessness is bad. I believe it is not.

It's rather like having no idea.

 

[Tynan]

Ok.
I probably won't be able to explain this fully, and I understand there will always be conflicting views and opinions, but, before you read this, please be open to the possibility.

<snip>

Words are not pre-existent entities, they are merely inventions of man as a means of communication, a general consensus between a group of people as to what they mean- and when told "you are using that word incorrectly", it can only be true if the same language rules are being applied to both people.

Agree.

No language = no religion.

Religion relies on the deft slicing of semantics to convince minds that the vapid nonesense it espouses is valid.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Agree.

No language = no religion.

No language = no intelligence.

You might want to consider ALL of the effects of the things that you propose, not merely the effects that you intend to cast upon others.

Religion relies on the deft slicing of semantics to convince minds that the vapid nonesense it espouses is valid.

As does all of Science and all reasoning.

No language = insanity and chaos = misery and death = replacement by those who did NOT pursue "no language".

Aren't serpents fun.

 

[Tynan]

No language = no intelligence.

Intelligence is not reliant on language.

You might want to consider ALL of the effects of the things that you propose, not merely the effects that you intend to cast upon others.

I am 'proposing' nothing, nor do I intend to 'cast' 'effects' onto others (whatever that might mean?).

I am simply making the observation that without language religion could not survive as it is largely dependent on semantics.

Tynan wrote: Religion relies on the deft slicing of semantics to convince minds that the vapid nonesense it espouses is valid

As does all of Science and all reasoning.

Reason espouses nonsense ?

Science espouses nonsense ?

I read your response as nothing more than a ***-for-tat riposte

No language = insanity and chaos = misery and death = replacement by those who did NOT pursue "no language".

Animals lack a spoken language, they survive, thrive, reproduce, my cat likes to sleep next to the stove in winter and on the lawn in summer, plays with a ping pong ball when he is interested and likes chocolate, he hardly lives in a world of insanity, chaos, misery and death, he appears to be quite content.

Aren't serpents fun.

Can you explain this comment to me, is it a Christian insult of some kind ?

Shall we agree to keep to the subject and not recourse to personal attack ?

 

[mshupe1959]

I'm not sure I understand. If language is meaningless, how are you able to communicate that statement to another?

 

[phsyxx]

No language = no intelligence.

You might want to consider ALL of the effects of the things that you propose, not merely the effects that you intend to cast upon others.
As does all of Science and all reasoning.

No language = insanity and chaos = misery and death = replacement by those who did NOT pursue "no language".

Aren't serpents fun.

You say LANGUAGE.

I mean THE SPOKEN WORD.

Notice how religious experiences are indescribable, beyond words----

beyond the ability to twist and pervert what is being said.
I believe a word in the previous sentence has been eliminated.

How do you believe that CATS communicate?

No language= insanity and chaos.


Typically not true.
It seems that the truest of all motions and actions are without words.
A wordless gesture of kindness of a man giving money to a homeless person.
The money itself means nothing.
The word money means nothing.
It is just a term accepted by those that speak english to explain the concept of financial value.
The man on the street has little of this "money", which I now call "flook".
The man with the flook gives some of his hard-earned flook to the out-of pocket homeless guy.

So what does flook mean to you and I?
It is an alternative word for money of course.
But to everyone outside of this language game, it is merely a silly, meaningless word.

Now...all language is a word game.
All language is an attempt to explain and define the world around us in greater detail than to point and grunt.
Language is a sociable trait. To share a consensus and an understanding of other's experiences is to become closer to them.

Language can also be used aggressively.
In actual fact- take an example of a scene of shakespeare/

In "The Tempest", Caliban is arguing with Prospero. Miranda is also present.
Initially, the actors read the words, delivering them.

How is it possible that these words are so wooden, emotionless and boring, when they were written by a genius?
Is it that the readers do not understand what has been written, and therefore cannot participate in the consensus that Shakespeare agreed to in the Elizabethan era?
Once the meanings are there, then the actor can deliver with emotion.
So, for words to mean anything, not only do you have to participate in the general consensus of what the word is- you have to understand the meanings attached to the word.
Like "lily-livered swine."
Agressive, insulting, attached to feelings of hatred.

Further this exercise, and we begin to remove some of the dialogue- replacing it with physical/ bodily movements to express the emotional state of the character.
Once this has been done and mastered, we then replace ALL dialogue with physical actions, so that the relationship and context remain, and the actors become like animals.
And what do we end up with?
Something that can quite easily be understood and the context of which was grasped by an audience.
Something which is rare in Shakespeare, considering how often many young people leave having switched off after struggling with the language.

Have you seen the wordless adaptation of HAMLET by the Russian Director- Andrei Malaev-Babel?

 

[phsyxx]

I'm not sure I understand. If language is meaningless, how are you able to communicate that statement to another?

Ok...maybe a touch of confusion here.
I will clear this up for you.

Language has a meaning between yourself and myself.
But it is a moderated meaning.
Say for example, you spoke French and not a word of English.
This sentence makes no sense to you.

But language is meaningful if you understand the comparisons your brain makes to other instances and words.
GREEN- to a blind from birth man, means NOTHING.
It can only mean something to a sighted person, to the extent that they have SEEN a colour, applied the word GREEN onto it, and remember it:
So that, whenever the word GREEN is applied or used in a sentence, you can recall the comparison, or memory of it, and apply it in the present instance.

Now- why do we disagree what colour cars are?
"That's not green, that's turquoise."
"No, it's green."

It is merely the past instances that both people are comparing the present instance to. Their applied memories of the word GREEN are different; meaning that they compare the current colour to a series of different images, different to the other persons comparisons.

Now, this shows that language is merely an application onto pre-existent objects.
No matter what you call the colour car, or car, or colour or whatever or however you speak-
the object that it is, DOES NOT CHANGE.
Language is almost like an intangible substance, created and used by man, developed from his mind and projected outwards.
The rules are therefore different from man to man. Each man has his own view and understanding of the rules of language. Thus, the rules can be broken, through paradoxical statements, rather like Esher's drawings of water flowing uphill or the never-ending stairs.
If language were physical objects, they would not be able to construct themselves in the manner that the idea projects- but since they are not, because the rules are just in someone's mind, the rules can be broken because they are not physical- not existent.

This sentence, for example:
Moo moo has the floor on its head with a whizz-bang chopper from the ning-nang-nong.

Does it make any sense?
dfojdfjdfldfjdlfjdlfjdljf
Just a series of letters in a random order.
No...'tis the language of Ancient Sygobia.

Language is a made-up construct applied to objects and abstract ideas in an attempt to communicate an individual's perception of the universe in order for others to be able to understand this individual's perception.
As long as you participate in the agreed (by common consensus) rules of English, you will be able to communicate with myself and others, those that also particpate in the rules of English.
If at any point I refuse to do so...it could become very hard to understand me.


SO---language IS meaningful, only to the extent that you apply the same rules in the same manner that the consensus ordains that you do so.
OR-
as long as you get what I'm saying, everything's alright.

 

[quatona]

Ok.
I probably won't be able to explain this fully, and I understand there will always be conflicting views and opinions, but, before you read this, please be open to the possibility.

A paradox is an example of a statement which loops itself to infinity.
Star Trek has done it, and this riddle is a good demonstration of this principle.

"A prisoner is about to be sentenced to death. The exectioner in charge of the operation has been told to give the prisoner one last option- to show the corperation's good will, even to those who have commited heinous crimes.
The option is to either be hanged or shot.
If the statement of the prisoner is true, he will be shot, if it is false however, he shall be hanged."

Pretty quickly the prisoner was let go.
Why was this?
Well.....to avoid making you work it out, the prisoner says-
"I shall be hanged."

There is no truth or falsity to this statement, as the truth of it depends on the scenario.

Another example of this is.

1.) Number two is true.
2.) Number one is false.

How is this possible? How can they both be true? How can they both be false?
Eventually, one comes to the conclusion that they are utterly meaningless.
This is because the words, and their meanings are being used in a context which means that their application- what is usually understood as their meaning- is faulty.

Take for example a frenchman that cannot speak english.
These words written here mean nothing to him. They are essentially meaningless.
Then, take for example a blind person- they cannot see these words written here, and are therefore meaningless.

Words are not pre-existent entities, they are merely inventions of man as a means of communication, a general consensus between a group of people as to what they mean- and when told "you are using that word incorrectly", it can only be true if the same language rules are being applied to both people.

Although I think you are on the right track, it seems to me that you are confusing some things.
1. Of course, verbal communication necessarily suffers from a lot of distortion, since no two persons have the exact same idea when using or hearing a particular term.
2. This doesn´t make language meaningless, though. In fact, it seems to be a sufficiently useful tool in many cases.
3. Given two people who are interested in understanding each other, they will try to track down where this noise and distortion comes from, ask questions, give further detailed explanations etc. Of course, this again is verbal communication itself, an it suffers from the same problem. Thus, verbal communication is a permanent process of approximation, and will never be perfect (distortionless, noiseless).
4. Granted, that in many cases - especially if people have certain negative preconceptions about the person opposite - communication can fail completely.
5. Paradoxes are a completely different issue. Just like some people try to redefine words in a way that is neither supported by history of language nor by common use, and thereby purposely add distortion to communication, some people play a game that is based on the erroneous, but apparently widely spread idea, that a grammatically correct sentence of existing and meaningful words must have a meaning itself. This, of course, is not necessarily the case.
A particular example for that are semantic paradoxes, like you have named a few.
However, the fact that it is possible to abuse language in a meaningless way, does not allow the conclusion that verbal communication itself is necessarily meaningless or unable to transmit meaning.

 

[phsyxx]

Although I think you are on the right track, it seems to me that you are confusing some things.
1. Of course, verbal communication necessarily suffers from a lot of distortion, since no two persons have the exact same idea when using or hearing a particular term.
2. This doesn´t make language meaningless, though. In fact, it seems to be a sufficiently useful tool in many cases.
Thus, verbal communication is a permanent process of approximation, and will never be perfect (distortionless, noiseless).

Thanks quatona, but in later posts I went on to say that language is only meaningless to the extent that it is, as you say "an approximation". (See post directly above your own.)

some people play a game that is based on the erroneous, but apparently widely spread idea, that a grammatically correct sentence of existing and meaningful words must have a meaning itself. This, of course, is not necessarily the case.

Please, do explain this concept further to me.

A particular example for that are semantic paradoxes, like you have named a few.
However, the fact that it is possible to abuse language in a meaningless way, does not allow the conclusion that verbal communication itself is necessarily meaningless or unable to transmit meaning.

By no means do I mean to say that language is unable to transmit meaning, I mean to say that because of all the innaccuracies, language is shown to be a non-solid, warpable substance.
By this I mean, language is applied like wallpaper paste onto a world of walls. The walls are already there, but the language gives whatever object or concept a name, that which many people can understand as they are taught it, and so can therfore go out and express these ideas and concepts to more people.

But, language barriers, communication breakdowns, misunderstandings and paradoxes COULD NOT HAPPEN is language was a "real", a "solid" material.
It is similar to drawings of Esher, they are warped and could not exist in reality.
The same with language - if you were attempting to build a building (funnily enough), with language, then you would have to be ever so precise.
A building built with the words:
"It's so nice to see you, for I am a blind man, so tired I am, for it is I who gets up half-an hour before I go to bed whilst simultaneously doing everything and nothing at all, whilst wide awake and dead I be."

This building would collapse. It really doesn't make that much sense.

The point is- paradoxcial statements show that language isn't real. Therefore, language in itself is meaningless.
Ok, so you refute that, for there can be no word which is meaningless.
Well, no, there cannot. But that is simply because there are meanings attached to it.
Imagine air wrapped in a parcel.
The words are but air, but you see the parcel because of the meanings you apply and entwine and encase the air with.
Without an application of the correct and learnt meaning, or any meaning at all- a word is meaningless.
Hence, when you hear a foreign language that you know nothing of, it is gobble-de-g.ook.
It means that if you realise there is a difference between language meaning anything, and the meanings attached to language and applied outwardly onto objects and concepts, then you can realise that language without the application of a definition, IS MEANINGLESS.

 

[quatona]

Hey, phsyxx, and thanks for your reply.
To be honest, I am undecided whether your point is particularly deep and I don´t understand it or whether it is pretty banal.
I mean I do not know what "language is not real" is supposed to mean. Of course, it is not a thing, and it is subject to constant change, modification and individual use. But what would you have expected? That it is written in stone, that language "exists" independent of its users and recipients? Not even the concepts that we try to communicate by language "exist" in this sense.
Our concepts are a map of what is (showing, emphasizing, grouping that what is useful, relevant and significant to us, and in a way that seems useful, relevant and significant to us), and language again is a map of this map.

Thanks quatona, but in later posts I went on to say that language is only meaningless to the extent that it is, as you say "an approximation". (See post directly above your own.)

Ok. (Then again, "language is meaningless" is the very statement in the thread title).

Please, do explain this concept further to me.

Here is an actual example from a post directed to me today:
A world with pain and love is preferable to a world with no free will, is it not?

A formally and grammatically correct question, put together of existing and meaningful words, yet nonsensical, paradox.
Another example: "It´s further to New York than by train." or:
"What does the mirror show if noone looks into it?"

By no means do I mean to say that language is unable to transmit meaning, I mean to say that because of all the innaccuracies, language is shown to be a non-solid, warpable substance.

Yes, of course. I would even deny that it is a substance.

By this I mean, language is applied like wallpaper paste onto a world of walls. The walls are already there, but the language gives whatever object or concept a name, that which many people can understand as they are taught it, and so can therfore go out and express these ideas and concepts to more people.

Yes, sure. I wonder what else purpose you expected it to serve.

But, language barriers, communication breakdowns, misunderstandings and paradoxes COULD NOT HAPPEN is language was a "real", a "solid" material.

Then again, if language were a solid material, it would not be a means to express and communicate our ideas, and that´s exactly what I appreciate about language.

It is similar to drawings of Esher, they are warped and could not exist in reality.
The same with language - if you were attempting to build a building (funnily enough), with language, then you would have to be ever so precise.

I disagree here. I think you take two steps at a time in your analogy.
Language would have to be compared to paintings in general (and not to Escher´s paintings in particular, as you do). Certain ways of using language can be compared to Escher´s paintings (see my examples above): They picture or imply or presuppose something (physically or logically) impossible.

A building built with the words:
"It's so nice to see you, for I am a blind man, so tired I am, for it is I who gets up half-an hour before I go to bed whilst simultaneously doing everything and nothing at all, whilst wide awake and dead I be."

This building would collapse. It really doesn't make that much sense.

Sure. You can paint something impossible, you can speak in a meaningless way - so what? You can misuse about everything.
I wouldn´t even find it worth mentioning that a painting is not the object that it is supposed to picture. That goes without saying, I think. Same with language. Pictures are not their subjects, concepts are not things, and language isn´t the concept that it is supposed to communicate, even less that which the concept tries to understand.

The point is- paradoxcial statements show that language isn't real.

Again, I´m not sure what you mean here when saying "real". Unreal as opposed to what? Are concepts "real"?

Therefore, language in itself is meaningless.

Everything in itself is meaningless, if you will.

Ok, so you refute that, for there can be no word which is meaningless.
Well, no, there cannot. But that is simply because there are meanings attached to it.

Sure. That´s what "meaning" means: Something we attach to something. Meaning "is not real" in the same way language "is not real". Thus, if language is supposed to communicate something that is "not real", how can it possibly be "real" itself?

Imagine air wrapped in a parcel.
The words are but air, but you see the parcel because of the meanings you apply and entwine and encase the air with.
Without an application of the correct and learnt meaning, or any meaning at all- a word is meaningless.

Of course. That is true for everything, though. We create meaning in our minds, and we try to communicate this meaning by language.

Hence, when you hear a foreign language that you know nothing of, it is gobble-de-g.ook.

Yes, but the same is true when I see a machine of which I neither know the purpose nor the way it functions.
Or let´s get even more basic: There is a stone (about the most "solid, real" thing one might imagine) lying there in the field. Does it have meaning? Which meaning does it have? Meaning has to be generated by us. E.g. when I pass this stone, it might mean to me that I have to go five more minutes until I am at home. To someone else it might have a completely different meaning, or none at all. To me it might have other additional meanings than the one mentioned.
Your idea that meaning equals or depends on or is determined by substance, solidity, physical existence seems to be pretty absurd to me. I think that rather the very opposite is the case.

It means that if you realise there is a difference between language meaning anything, and the meanings attached to language and applied outwardly onto objects and concepts, then you can realise that language without the application of a definition, IS MEANINGLESS.

Yes, sure. By the same token literally everything is meaningless, unless we apply meaning to it.

Greetings
quatona