Paradoxical statements show that language is meaningless.

[phsyxx]

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:


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.

Well, yes quatona...
but to be honest, no-one really knows whether or not the organism inside a person actually becomes a person inside the uterus.

For me, people only become people when they can recall events, so that it shows that their brain is working.

 

[Gracchus]

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

ARGUMENTATE? ARRRGH!

 

[quatona]

Well, yes quatona...
but to be honest, no-one really knows whether or not the organism inside a person actually becomes a person inside the uterus.
For me, people only become people when they can recall events, so that it shows that their brain is working.

phsyxx, I didn´t mean to discuss abortion. I was merely contradicting the notion that the actual question in the abortion discussion is when life begins.

 

[quatona]

ARGUMENTATE? ARRRGH!

Gracchus, I don´t seem to understand your comment. What´s the problem?

 

[Gracchus]

Gracchus, I don´t seem to understand your comment. What´s the problem?

There is no such word as "arguementate". The verb is "argue".

 

[quatona]

There is no such word as "arguementate". The verb is "argue".

Thanks, I´ll keep it in mind.

(I´m not a native English speaker, and I guess all I can do is ask you for your patience.)

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Where are you from quatona?

Happy birthday too.

 

[quatona]

Where are you from quatona?

From German (old Europe ).

Happy birthday too.

Thank you!
Will these ridiculous balloons ever go away?

 

[phsyxx]

From German (old Europe ).


Thank you!
Will these ridiculous balloons ever go away?

yes...but not before I wish you a happy birthday!!!!



The meaning of an object is intrinsic in its existence.
It obviously has a MEANS to exist.....
oh actually, no, there's no meaning to anything...

but language is meaningless, right?

 

[quatona]

yes...but not before I wish you a happy birthday!!!!

Thank you!
But they are still there...

The meaning of an object is intrinsic in its existence.
It obviously has a MEANS to exist.....
oh actually, no, there's no meaning to anything...

I´m not sure I understand, phsyxx. The first and the third sentence seem to contradict each other.
Had you told me from the beginning that you defined there to be intrinsic meaning to physical objects, you could have spared me a lot of confusion. Language has no physical existence, and thus, by your definition, it does not have the meaning you assume to be an intrinsic property of physical objects.
Unfortunately I have problems following this definition. To me "has meaning" always asks for the question "to whom does it mean this/something?". Intrinsic meaning is a contradiction in terms, if going by the traditional meaning of "meaning".
And what the heck is it with this means=meaning argument?

but language is meaningless, right?

Not to me.

 

[rambot]

I'd like to think that one of the two things that have helped humans to evolve into the species that absolutely dominates the living world, is something a little more than meaningless.
What would it mean if the thing that has helped us so much is without meaning?

 

[quatona]

I'd like to think that one of the two things that have helped humans to evolve into the species that absolutely dominates the living world, is something a little more than meaningless.

What are you talking about? Why do you think this "thing" is inherently meaningful?

What would it mean if the thing that has helped us so much is without meaning?

Nothing.
Make sure you are not equivocating "inherently meaning" and "meaningful to me".

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

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!?

I'm sorry, but your posts are meaningless according to your logic. Why waste your time writing such meaningless words?

 

[quatona]

I'm sorry, but your posts are meaningless according to your logic.

Yes, right. Even the most insignificant rock is more meaningful.

 

[rambot]

Why do you think this "thing" is inherently meaningful?

oops, you misread my "meaningful" words.
I wrote:

I'd like to think that one of the two things

Perhaps the "meaningfulness" of words is more of a wholistic thing than a specific one.

 

[quatona]

oops, you misread my "meaningful" words.

Sorry, my bad.

Perhaps the "meaningfulness" of words is more of a wholistic thing than a specific one.

I am not sure I know what you mean.

 

[phsyxx]

Sorry, my bad.



I am not sure I know what you mean.

Yes...I believe not only is "wholistic" a spelling mistake of "holistic", but that it has been used in a bad context.

This, of course, is according to the Oxford English dictionary- but as always, if you are abiding by your own ATTACHED meanings, then it is indeed correct.

 

[phsyxx]

I'm sorry, but your posts are meaningless according to your logic. Why waste your time writing such meaningless words?

Well...actually, according to my logic, the WORDS in themselves are meaningless... but I know that there are a set of meanings and definitions derived from these words BY PEOPLE.
So ACTUALLY I am NOT wasting my time, I am infact showing that the meaning comes from you and you alone.
A baby inherently has the ability to pick up and imitate any language- but it a baby born in England does not genetically have the vocabulary of its parents.
If its parents spoke french to it entirely, then the baby would speak french.

Meaning- language is a LEARNT skill. It is a task developed over years and is not INATE.
Meaning; it is not pre-existent.
Meaning- it is a concept created and developed by humans.
Meaning- if you remove the human interaction and understanding of language-
it IS MEANINGLESS.


TO RAMBOT

You "would like to think.." Great, go ahead. Be my guest, go ahead and think as you like, still doesn't really give what you said any value, as having discussed this topic for weeks now, having developed it further, you have entered at a stage when it is necessary to have explored all of the previous developments- and since you have not, there is a slight lack of understanding in your post.

 

[quatona]

Well...actually, according to my logic, the WORDS in themselves are meaningless... but I know that there are a set of meanings and definitions derived from these words BY PEOPLE.
So ACTUALLY I am NOT wasting my time, I am infact showing that the meaning comes from you and you alone.
A baby inherently has the ability to pick up and imitate any language- but it a baby born in England does not genetically have the vocabulary of its parents.
If its parents spoke french to it entirely, then the baby would speak french.

Meaning- language is a LEARNT skill. It is a task developed over years and is not INATE.
Meaning; it is not pre-existent.
Meaning- it is a concept created and developed by humans.
Meaning- if you remove the human interaction and understanding of language-
it IS MEANINGLESS.

Only if you use "meaningless" in the meaning of "having no inate meaning."

There we are again, physxx,
and I still have no clue where you are actually aiming, and why you put so much effort in stating the obvious, banal, trivial.
Actually, I don´t recall to have ever heard someone arguing that the meaning of words is inate to them. Everybody seems to be aware that meaningful language is an achievement of agreement. We don´t need no freaking paradoxes for that. A simple experiment is enough: I will agree with my friend Peter that for the next two hours we will call this lengthy object on my desk that you can write with a "whoocal". Will we be able to communicate meaningfully in regards to this object? Yes, whilst people who are not aware of this agreement are likely to be confused by our following conversation.
This is exactly how language works and has always worked, and I don´t know that there is anyone doubting this.

 

[phsyxx]

Semantics!
WHOOP!

Yes...well, I could use the fact that we have to to an agreement that "words have to inate meaning", to some good end....but since we are on a Christian website, it seems that I would quickly disappear if I were to do such things.