Paradoxical statements show that language is meaningless.

quatona said:

I would have to disagree. A "rock" is the product of our minds.
...

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

Click to expand...

So if you don't know it exists, you won't feel the rock when it slams into the back of your head?

Hi, Gracchus,

Gracchus said:

So if you don't know it exists, you won't feel the rock when it slams into the back of your head?

Click to expand...

When what slams...?

I´m not sure how this question must be considered a response to my post.
I didn´t mean to deny that I am able and oftentimes downright hard-pressed to feel pain. Neither did I mean to deny that I find the concept "rock" oftentimes a useful one, in everyday life and for communication purposes.
I even explicitly stated that I feel we can consider ourselves fortunate, because our needs and desires are so similar that our ways of conceptualizing that which is are sufficiently close, too. It´s amazing, actually.

phsyxx said:

How is this?
No.
What I say is- "the rock exists".
To a cat- who is languageless, it exists.

Click to expand...

To a cat ideas like "meaning" are not available, anyways.

You can perceive things through sensory reception without applying words or definitions to them- and without attaching concepts and ideas to them.

Click to expand...

As soon as I perceive it as something distinct I have created this concept. Whether I use language to express this concept or not, is marginal.
There exists no cat, unless I create it as a "cat" (no matter whether I use/have a word or not).

RUBBISH.

Click to expand...

I do not appreciate this discussion style.

We create "meaning", but mind you, the meaning of an aggressive act gives an immediate evolutionary response.
We do not give an action a meaning, such as "that Lion is approaching me at speed- that means that he is aggressive, it may mean I am about to be killed."

Click to expand...

Yes, there are a few actions that don´t seem to allow many different interpretations and applications of meanings. Yet, they do.
The fact that certain actions are interpreted similarly by most everybody doesn´t allow the conclusion that this is their inherent meaning. First of all it suggests the idea that we all interprete them similarly.

No, it simply doesn't happen like that. The meaning of the situation isn't in thinking it through words- it's through actions!

Click to expand...

No, it is through concepts, through which we create things and actions and give them meaning.

The lion coming towards you does not create literary prose- it releases chemicals within you to allow you to get away faster. The meaning of the action is inherent. It needs no explanation.

Click to expand...

I don´t see any inherent meaning in that. You seem to haven´t even mentioned it. You have described a result of selective perception, which helps you give a situation a useful meaning.

If it did- why would a gazelle run from a cheetah? Wouldn't they stand around and discuss the idea of prey and predator and food and chasing?
NO!

Click to expand...

ahhh, not so loud!
I have no indication that "meaning" is a category for animals to work with. They just respond instinctively, and so do we, presumably, in such situations.

Imagine the cat for a moment.
It perceives. It does not APPLY language to anything.
It simply perceives. Everything around it exists- but exists at a level which is instinctive- a series of evolutionary drives that create the correct response at the right time.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the crucial point is that cats not only do not apply language to what they perceive, but don´t even apply concepts to it, in the first place.

Erm...as someone else has said....that may be a touch tricky when it hits you.

Click to expand...

Has been adressed.

phsyxx said:

You WILL get hit by the rock, whether you accept the concept of a rock or not.

Click to expand...

How can I, since there is no rock, to begin with?

You will get hit by something which you do not have knowledge of.

Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it.
Then again, by the same token, I hear something which I do not have knowledge of.
In both cases I create meaning to these somethings.

Even if you deny the existence of the rock- it will still hit you.

Click to expand...

And I say there is no rock, in the first place.

phsyxx said:

I don't care what you think it is- the object with no name, no definition, no application of language, meaning or concept is going to hit you whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

My point being that there is no rock unless someone isolates something from "that which is" in his perception and mind and thinks of it as a distinct object.

Again, I must stress this. All beings are subject to harm.
A cat is a being. It is subject to harm. I intend to harm htis hypothetical cat.
I will throw the "rock" shall we say, at it- oh it hit it.
The cat does not name the rock, nor accept its existence, because it has not seen it.
Yet, somehow, the cat died.
Well....that's good, isn't it!?

Click to expand...

And? There is no cat. There is no death. There is no rock.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But I think we are far off on a tangent. My problem: I´m not one step further in understanding what your OP is trying to tell me.

You say: Language is inhenerently meaningless.
I answer and ask: Sure. No surprise there, since everything is inherently meaningless. What is your purpose in singling out language?

You say: Language does not have physical substance.
I answer and ask: Granted. Then again, concepts, feelings, thoughts, emotions haven´t either. What is your purpose in singling out language? Plus: What does physical substance has to do with having inherent meaning?

Getting answers to these questions will probably help me to understand better what you are actually out to communicate.

The physical object exists, but it is only to the human mind a definition of it exists. To the cat, the perception of the rock is that of an image with no definition, it smiply exists.

Which arguably makes the study of science obsolete.

phsyxx said:

Well...I'm not concerned with that.

I was more concerned with the fact that quatona wouldn't accept the concept that words are an internally derived concept, where as existence and physical objects in existence are independent of this internal generation.
You do not need to internally generate the idea of a rock before one will hit you in the head.

Click to expand...

If there can´t any new arguments brought up concerning the rock, let´s simply agree to disagree for the time being.

But have you seen my questions that tried to bring this thread back on topic and to gain better understanding of your point?

Btw. I do not disagree with the idea that words are an internally derived concept. I merely don´t understand why that would make them meaningless. And in the way you word it now, I would even say that if anything is meaningful it´s internally derived concepts. If anything, it´s them that create meaning.

phsyxx said:

I would agree with that quatona.


But, in sense, let's see a scribble enscribed on the rock.
It is a word.
But neither you nor I can speak nor understand it, it is just a scribble, even though we do not recognise what that scribble is.

The word in itself can exist- but it is meaningless.
We apply meaning to it.
Meaning is an internally derived concept.

Click to expand...

Yes, so far that´s what we have been in agreement upon all the time, I think.

Hence, when language is used in a way that the internally derived meanings conflict with one another, it becomes paradoxical.

Click to expand...

Yes.

In this sense, it shows that the words themselves are not creating the paradox- it is our concept of meaning that is doing that.

Click to expand...

Yes. Since we are the ones who give meaning to everything anyways, I would have thunk that this went without mentioning.
And that words don´t create meaning should be as obvious as that rocks don´t create any meaning.

The words in themselves are meaningless,

Click to expand...

...just like everything else...

and can exist in any state they like- in a sense- they are not real.

Click to expand...

Since we seem to agree in that meaninglessness is not an exclusive property to words but literally everything, it seems to be this last statement that actually contains the point you are trying to make.

So let´s look at this statement closer, ok?
I´m sorry for trying to be precise, and it might come across as nitpicking, but I´m just trying to understand, because I often find your reasoning a bit unstructured and want to get it sorted so I understand it.
So far we have three different statements from you about the properties or non-properties of words:
1. they are inherently meaningless (as we seem to agree, this is not even worth mentioning, because nothing is inherently meaningful. That´s why your thread title and OP appear to be misleading, because this can´t be the point you are trying to make).

2. they have no physical property. Agreed upon, and I have never seen that questioned, so I guess that isn´t your point either.

3. they are not real.
This, unfortunately is a word that really needs to be defined so that everyone knows what you are talking about. There are too many concepts of "reality" out there, as that we could simply assume we mean the same when saying it. Else chances are that we will paint an Escher-building.
According to your above reasoning the landmark (or one of the landmarks) for things being not real is that they can "appear in any state they like". Now, this is a sloppy wording to begin with, no? Words and things in general don´t like anything, so what you probably mean is that they can appear in any form we like. But how does that say anything but "we are the ones that give words meaning", which is the same as #1 (and not being an exclusive property of words but literally everything)?

In a sense, if we were to use language to create a building-
the words would be Esher's impossible drawing on the page- and the building that could never exist would be the meanings and concepts we apply to the words.

Click to expand...

And this, excuse me for being blunt, is a gross misconclusion, a non-sequitur. The fundament of an Escher-building, to stay in the picture.
It is not disputed that we can use the property of words of being subject to our meaning-giving in a way that creates paradoxes.
It is also not disputed that all paradoxes are generated by improper use of language, e.g. by false equivocation and other logical fallacies. This can be done with language, and it is often - intentionally or inadvertantly - done.
But how does that show that words necessarily build "impossible drawings"? Indeed they can build "impossible drawings", but - if properly used - build "possible drawings". Just like the fact that you can paint impossible things doesn´t mean that all things painted are impossible.
Furthermore, whenever language is used improperly, it can be analyzed and demonstrated by which means the fallacy has been induced. Just like you can analyze and demonstrate how Escher managed to paint an impossible building.

Often it already begins with bricks (words) that have no substance (concept attached to them). It can, e.g., be easily shown that many people who talk about "eternity" don´t hold a concept that this word signifies, but merely a non-concept derived by negation of a concept.

phsyxx said:

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.

Click to expand...

More insightful than you have been given credit for.

Any old philosphy salt, like me, will tell you that arguments are almost always one, not in the argument, but in the definitions. The definitions themselves cannot normally be defined without looking ahead at how one wants to resolve the argument. An example:

The abortion debate is really about the definition of a "living person"

If that which resides in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "living person" then there are almost no arguments which would allow such a person to be destroyed in an abortion (some argument may be made for "medical necessity" but certainly not for the "abortion on demand" type)

On the other hand, if the abortion debate is about a woman's "right to bodily integrity" then even abortion on demand may be permissible under the same reasoning as the "Make My Day" laws in several jurisdictions concerning trespassers to the homestead.

I suspect what you are calling "meaning" is not the typical usage. But I can't imagine a usage that makes the thread title make any sense.

phsyxx said:

To quatona-
"language is meaningless ["just like everything else"]"

Hm....
Ok, so the rock exists, but the meaning of it, or the purpose, or definition, or any concept developed by people to explain how, why, what, where and who (and when) is internal.
It does not exist on the rock.

Here, as has been pointed out to me, we are actually arguing over our own individual definitions of the word "meaning".
For me, the "meaning" of the rock is in its existence- the meaning of its existence is not explained-

yet the rock MUST have come about.
It MUST have come about in A PARTICULAR fashion.
IT MUST have come about at a CERTAIN TIME...

So the meaning of its existence is unknown- yet to me-
existent.
The reason, the cause and the meaning exist- but people continue to guess at it.

Click to expand...

Hi again, physxx,
if I´m not missing anything important, you simply assume there to be something (a god, a mastermind,...) that has given a rock a meaning to its existence.
I do not really know how to discuss such an assumption. I don´t see a sufficient basis for it.

JohnLocke said:

Any old philosphy salt, like me, will tell you that arguments are almost always one, not in the argument, but in the definitions. The definitions themselves cannot normally be defined without looking ahead at how one wants to resolve the argument.

Click to expand...

I agree. Definitions (which are actually distinctions) are based on what we find significant, important, relevant. Our ideas as to what is relevant, significant and important anticipate the result of what we are trying to argumentate for on basis of these definitions/distinctions. An entirely circular process.
An example:

The abortion debate is really about the definition of a "living person"

If that which resides in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "living person" then there are almost no arguments which would allow such a person to be destroyed in an abortion (some argument may be made for "medical necessity" but certainly not for the "abortion on demand" type)

Click to expand...

I disagree. Someone would merely have to reject the axiom that the life of a person is absolutely sacred, and he could argumentate easily for abortion.