Paradoxical statements show that language is meaningless.

[Lifesaver]

Words are sensible signs of things that we have in our intellect. The things we have in our intellect came to be in it from our senses.

Thus, words are sensible signs to signify real existing entities.
When we speak a paradox, or a self-contradiction, we are in one way or another using language incorrectly. We think we are referring to something, but we aren't.
Nothing more than that.

I am very sceptical about attempts which, using language, try to prove that language is meaningless.

 

[quatona]

Hi again, phsyxx, just a thought and a simple question that sort of summarizes my previous, long post:
I guess it would help me understand your point if you could give me an example for something that - as opposed to "language" - is "inherently meaningful", in your understanding and terminology.

 

[Tynan]

Words are sensible signs of things that we have in our intellect. The things we have in our intellect came to be in it from our senses.

Thus, words are sensible signs to signify real existing entities.

Which of your senses registered 'god' ?

 

[phsyxx]

Hi again, phsyxx, just a thought and a simple question that sort of summarizes my previous, long post:
I guess it would help me understand your point if you could give me an example for something that - as opposed to "language" - is "inherently meaningful", in your understanding and terminology.

mmm....ok.

Maybe I didn't read and re-read that paragraph as carefully as I should have done...but anyway...

gesticulations...they have meanings attached to them.... how does sherades work?
Ok...so there are connections and ground rules based in language, but the point is, people guess meanings without seeing words.

Paralinguistics...how people are feeling, what they understand, how they relate...shown by their physical relationship and movement with and amongst people/ each other.

Yes...so, to have the world in detail words are a tool that can be exceedingly useful...
but remember this...
only 7% of communication is verbal.

 

[quatona]

mmm....ok.

Maybe I didn't read and re-read that paragraph as carefully as I should have done...but anyway...

gesticulations...they have meanings attached to them.... how does sherades work?
Ok...so there are connections and ground rules based in language, but the point is, people guess meanings without seeing words.

Agreed. They guess meaning with words, and they guess meaning without words. Nonverbal communication is as prone to misunderstandings as verbal communication is, if not even more. Man, I could writes books about that. True story: A person, walking behind my back, saying: "Why do you make such an impatient face?" If I would have a dollar for every non-verbal message of mine that has been misinterpreted and of others that I have misinterpreted, I´d be a rich man.
Did you know that in some places in this world they shake their heads when agreeing with you?

Paralinguistics...how people are feeling, what they understand, how they relate...shown by their physical relationship and movement with and amongst people/ each other.

And these paralinguistic messages have an inherent meaning? They can´t be misunderstood? Come on.

Yes...so, to have the world in detail words are a tool that can be exceedingly useful...
but remember this...
only 7% of communication is verbal.

Although I doubt the value of this figure - mainly because I can´t imagine how this can be measured in percentages - I completely agree that non-verbal messages play a very great part in our communication.
Yet, it seems like you shoot your own foot with this number. If indeed 91% of communication occur through non-verbal (and as you say, inherently meaningful) messages and only 7% through verbal (and "inherently meaningless", as you would us believe) messages, where does the massive amount of misunderstandings (particularly on the emotional level) come from?

 

[phsyxx]

Although I doubt the value of this figure - mainly because I can´t imagine how this can be measured in percentages - I completely agree that non-verbal messages play a very great part in our communication.
Yet, it seems like you shoot your own foot with this number. If indeed 91% of communication occur through non-verbal (and as you say, inherently meaningful) messages and only 7% through verbal (and "inherently meaningless", as you would us believe) messages, where does the massive amount of misunderstandings (particularly on the emotional level) come from?

Erm...I heard, 93%/7%...but yeah..whatever.
Considering that you're forty years my senior, please explain this joke of yours to a befuddled younster...oh wise, noble quatona.

(snig.gers) (not in a juvenile manner)

 

[quatona]

Erm...I heard, 93%/7%...but yeah..whatever.
Considering that you're forty years my senior, please explain this joke of yours to a befuddled younster...oh wise, noble quatona.

(snig.gers) (not in a juvenile manner)

Man, you really know to turn the knife and then rub some salt into the wound, eh?
My only excuse is that I am more of a philosopher than a mathematician.

And just so we get even: Could you, my young friend with a fresh brain and not being corrupted by the laziness and convenience of the old age, explain to me how you arrived at the "forty years" I have over you?

Seriousness aside: Is there something else behind these remarks but mere fun? Have I, inadvertantly, been condescending or patronizing? It certainly was not my intention, and I would hate to come across that way. In fact, I enjoyed the discussion a lot.

Finally: Once you manage to get over my mathematical lapsus - is there anything you can say in response to the points I tried to make in my post?

 

[0rion]

Therefore language is an invention.

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

Of course, I don't think no one has actually said anything to the contrary.

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.

I do not think the statement 'God is beyond language' has any meaning, but accoring from your Original Post, I wouldn't have guessed that such statement(God is beyond language) was what you were trying to get across.

 

[phsyxx]

Man, you really know to turn the knife and then rub some salt into the wound, eh?
My only excuse is that I am more of a philosopher than a mathematician.

Whoops-ee-daisy....

And just so we get even: Could you, my young friend with a fresh brain and not being corrupted by the laziness and convenience of the old age, explain to me how you arrived at the "forty years" I have over you?

Erm...your homepage says youy were born in the fifties...

Seriousness aside: Is there something else behind these remarks but mere fun? Have I, inadvertantly, been condescending or patronizing? It certainly was not my intention, and I would hate to come across that way. In fact, I enjoyed the discussion a lot.

No, I think it was to do with the fact that statistics in discussions only matter if the matter you are dealing with concerns the statistics.
IN OTHER WORDS...what ACTUAL percentage it is doesnt matter. It's the concept that nearly all communication doesn't involve activation of a set structure of words.

Finally: Once you manage to get over my mathematical lapsus - is there anything you can say in response to the points I tried to make in my post?

Firstly: What does lapsus mean?
Secondly: YES>
Thirdly: I am going to.

Quote:
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"?


Quote:
Therefore, language in itself is meaningless.
Everything in itself is meaningless, if you will.

NO.
Quatona.
I'm sorry.
This evaluation has to be led from objects through to words.

You use the example of the rock. "the most solid, obviously existent object there can be, if you like."

I don't care about the meaning of the rock.
I don't care what you think about it.
I don't care your view on the description, application of a noun to distinguish it from every other object in the universe.
It's a rock.
Call it a rock, call it a chair, call it a froogly goomba if you like.
BUT.
The important thing is- it is there.
No doubt about it. Doesn't matter WHAT you call it or think about it. It is there.

Without language, the whole world still exists.
Imagine you are a cat. You do not think- you simply be.
Apply that to the rock.
You do not think about what it is, why it is, how it is, what it is for ETC...but you know it exists.

Without words, the whole world still exists.
Therefore, language is merely an application of an idea onto a physical entity.

Language is only made meaningful through a series of comparisions that your brain makes- and applies it to the object.
Language, without words, is not a physical, pre-existent substance.

Would you agree with me on this?


Now abstract ideas.
If you understand how the concrete nouns and language works, through a series of comparisons and data storgae and recall in the brain, then you will understand that abstract concepts work in the same way, but are not applied to a physical object. Merely, applied to an idea, made solid through connection to concrete words, or through other people's consensual understanding of what THAT IDEA IS>


Language must be learnt, taught and understood through a series of comparisons, before the person can use it "correctly".
this is for concrete language.
Abstract language can only be learnt in connection with this.
So that, children's books just have a series of pictures with the word on them- and not an emotive or abstract concept.

Would a child ever be able to learn the "meaning" of a word without ever having seen the actual object it refers to?
No.

 

[quatona]

Erm...your homepage says youy were born in the fifties...

Your age is 18, mine 48. Makes thirty years difference (I double-checked my calculation several times, just not to embarass myself again).

No, I think it was to do with the fact that statistics in discussions only matter if the matter you are dealing with concerns the statistics.
IN OTHER WORDS...what ACTUAL percentage it is doesnt matter. It's the concept that nearly all communication doesn't involve activation of a set structure of words.

Then, why did you bring up statistic figures, in the first place?

Firstly: What does lapsus mean?

A flaw, a mistake.

You use the example of the rock. "the most solid, obviously existent object there can be, if you like."

I don't care about the meaning of the rock.
I don't care what you think about it.
I don't care your view on the description, application of a noun to distinguish it from every other object in the universe.

That´s fine with me, but we were not discussing what you care about, but a factual claim of yours.

It's a rock.
Call it a rock, call it a chair, call it a froogly goomba if you like.
BUT.
The important thing is- it is there.
No doubt about it. Doesn't matter WHAT you call it or think about it. It is there.

I know what you mean, and I feel about the same about it. But you are not answering my question, in which the rock was just an illustrating example. Here is my question again:
You say "language has no meaning", and I ask you "Opposed to what? What has meaning?"
You claimed that language has no meaning, because it has no solidity, substance (implying that having solidity, substance are a hallmark for having meaning), and I asked you about the meaning of things with substance, using the example of the rock.

Without language, the whole world still exists.
Imagine you are a cat. You do not think- you simply be.
Apply that to the rock.
You do not think about what it is, why it is, how it is, what it is for ETC...but you know it exists.

Yes, certainly. But what does that have to do with my question: If you emphasize that language has no meaning, give me an example for what has meaning.

Without words, the whole world still exists.
Therefore, language is merely an application of an idea onto a physical entity.

You needn´t repeat that all over. That´s banal, anyways. I have understood it, I agree, and I don´t know anyone who thinks that language is anything else but exactly this. What else do you expect from language? That´s exactly the purpose language serves: It gives meaning to that which otherwise merely exists in its immediacy. Concepts and language generate meaning that else wouldn´t be there.

Language is only made meaningful through a series of comparisions that your brain makes- and applies it to the object.
Language, without words, is not a physical, pre-existent substance.

Sure. We all know that.
Again you make it sound as if physical substance were a prerequisite for being meaningful, but when I asked you to give me an example for the meaning of something physically substantial, you answered you don´t care about it.

Would you agree with me on this?

Of course, I have voiced my agreement with this in previous posts. I don´t see how that makes language meaningless though, and I still don´t know what in your idea is meaningful, as opposed to language.

Now abstract ideas.
If you understand how the concrete nouns and language works, through a series of comparisons and data storgae and recall in the brain, then you will understand that abstract concepts work in the same way, but are not applied to a physical object. Merely, applied to an idea, made solid through connection to concrete words, or through other people's consensual understanding of what THAT IDEA IS>

Yes, sure.
I really want you to explain that: On the one hand you emphasize how important it is for having meaning that something is a physical object, but when I ask you to explain the meaning of a physical object, you say you don´t care about physical objects.

Language must be learnt, taught and understood through a series of comparisons, before the person can use it "correctly".
this is for concrete language.
Abstract language can only be learnt in connection with this.
So that, children's books just have a series of pictures with the word on them- and not an emotive or abstract concept.

Exactly. Language and concepts generate meaning, where otherwise would be none.

Would a child ever be able to learn the "meaning" of a word without ever having seen the actual object it refers to?
No.

And?
Everything is meaningless (and merely what it is), unless we create concepts and language that give them meaning, Hence, if anything is meaningful, it is concepts and language.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

I think if I'm not mistaken you both have the same viewpoint on language. Lot's of aggression there, imagine people who didn't agree!

 

[quatona]

I think if I'm not mistaken you both have the same viewpoint on language.

Yes, to a certain degree. We both think, that language has no phyiscal substance. Then again, nobody thinks that language has physical substance. So I still wonder what his point is beyond this trivial observation.
We apparently disagree, in that he concludes that language has no meaning, and I say that we are the ones who create meaning though concepts and language creates meaning.
Furthermore, his emphasis on language having no meaning suggest the question, what - as opposed to meaning - does have meaning.

Lot's of aggression there, imagine people who didn't agree!

Aggression??
For me this has been a nice and objective conversation so far, with a few jokes here and there. Where did you spot aggression?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well from physxx a little. But I think the way he is thinking he'll end up with the same view as you, might be wrong.

 

[phsyxx]

Here is my question again:
You say "language has no meaning", and I ask you "Opposed to what? What has meaning?"

quatona...I'm not eighteen, not yet.
and erm...I think someone has forgotten your 48th about three times...maybe?

Haha...and please, nobody mistake my passion for the subject as anger.
I don't get angry, I get frustratedly passionate.

Anyway....the importance of the subject ISN'T that things other than language have meaning, and therefore since they do, language doesn't....
I'm saying, "language is not a physical entity...it is merely an invention....therefore, language does not ACTUALLY exist as itself, independent of anything...therefore the meaning of it is just as unreal...THERE IS NO MEANING TO LANGUAGE...we ATTACH THE MEANING"

I assume you want to respond to that point, before I go further on this.

 

[quatona]

Anyway....the importance of the subject ISN'T that things other than language have meaning, and therefore since they do, language doesn't....

Ok. Since, in my opinion, nothing has inherent meaning, but meaning is exactly that which we add to what actually exists in its immediacy, the notion that language - as everything else - has no inherent meaning goes without saying.
Concepts and language generate meaning. Without them there is none.

I'm saying, "language is not a physical entity...it is merely an invention....therefore, language does not ACTUALLY exist as itself, independent of anything...therefore the meaning of it is just as unreal...THERE IS NO MEANING TO LANGUAGE...we ATTACH THE MEANING"

Sorry, but I still don´t get the link between being a physical entity and having inherent meaning. What does this aspect of (not) being a phyiscal entity do to your argumentation, if physical entities have no inherent meaning, either?

I assume you want to respond to that point, before I go further on this.

Good idea to take things step by step!

 

[mnbvcxz87]

'Ok. Since, in my opinion, nothing has inherent meaning, but meaning is exactly that which we add to what actually exists in its immediacy, the notion that language - as everything else - has no inherent meaning goes without saying.
Concepts and language generate meaning. Without them there is none.'

Surely there's meaning in the monkey who starves rather than take food causing the second monkey to suffer.

I agree with phyxx that language is an invention, with no inherent meaning. But then I also agree with you that nothing has an inherent meaning in a way. Except for maybe the actions of altruism or indeed empathy. Possibly before and after this universe there will exist, or we will exist and have as an entity with these values, however they exist.

Language is only temporary, though.

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

Words are not meaningless unless you do not mean them.

 

[phsyxx]

Words are not meaningless unless you do not mean them.

YOU attach the meaning....
therefore, independent of YOU, the words are meaningless.

 

[phsyxx]

QUATONA.

The rock exists.
Indpendent of meaning- that does not matter.
It exists.

Meaning is attached to it.


Language exists.
But only in the minds of people that speak it.
Language does not exist as a physical entity.
People did not always exist.
Language did not always exist.
Language is an invention.

Language, therfore (go with me on this) does not exist.


Meaning is attached to it.


The meaning of the rock is definite in its noun.
Whatever you want to call it, it is inflexible in what it is.
A rock.

However, language is liquid in form.
The meaning of it is independent and flexible in one person and from person to person.

 

[quatona]

QUATONA.

The rock exists.
Indpendent of meaning- that does not matter.
It exists.

I would have to disagree. A "rock" is the product of our minds. We divide that which is into separate and distinct objects, in the way it seems useful to us. We organize that which is, so that we can handle it. Since our needs and perceptions are pretty similar, we agree in how things are to be separated most of the time. Same with language.

Meaning is attached to it.

We create objects and their meaning.

Language exists.
But only in the minds of people that speak it.
Language does not exist as a physical entity.
People did not always exist.
Language did not always exist.
Language is an invention.

Like everything else.

Language, therfore (go with me on this) does not exist.

No, I think I won´t go with you on this. It suggests that there is something that exists, and if we say language doesn´t exist, we have to say that none of the objects we perceive exist.

The meaning of the rock is definite in its noun.
Whatever you want to call it, it is inflexible in what it is.
A rock.

But there is no physical object "rock". Our minds create such objects.

However, language is liquid in form.

Liquid?

The meaning of it is independent and flexible in one person and from person to person.

Same with rocks and everything else - we have been there a couple of pages ago.