The Shakespearean Principle

First, that words are abstractions and not what they represent.

The other discussion was that of some poster who remarked that "something was only X because it was called X". As Juliet would have told this person, that is clearly not true. A rose was not a rose only because it was called a "rose". And certainly, Romeo was not Romeo just because he was called, "Romeo". Thank goodness for Shakespeare (and Juliet too!).

On this point, we must look at universals. We can point out particular words but not the class "word." To call a word an abstraction is similar to saying that it represents an abstraction or a universal. Do universals exist for us that are not represented in our minds by at least one word or symbol? If so, we can't prove it, because how would we? To speak is largely to use universals, or rather the abstract words that represent them.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------


I agree with you on this point. Words are only part of our experience, and they largely refer to the other parts of our experience, namely sensation and emotion. However, our more abstract words are learned in context. In this case, the particular word has its particular associations, and not necessarily a perfect synonym. Some of our experiences exist only in the form of concept. For instance, number. Yes, we associate numerical concepts with sensation, but I would argue they exist in their own right. You mentioned that "3" is a numeral and not a number. Perhaps you were referring to what I'm saying.

What I don't understand is why you go on about it as if there are a bunch of people who think that words are identical with what they represent.

And yet I've already answered this. As obvious as you want to believe it is, we still have assertions that the experience of life can be reduced to abstractions ........

Evidently, huge numbers of people still mess up thinking the signifier is somehow considered identical with the signified.

Is it conceivable to imagine that what is being argued is perhaps the signified (meaning) of the signifier (the symbol, word, sound, image), although it may sometimes refer to referents (things), is more an abstraction (concept) in the mind. So signifieds are not things, but at best the notion of things. In this manner, one could now argue that signs per se (signifier/signified) are themselves vehicles for abstraction. So much so, that a large part of human behaviour is about the way we perform towards our abstractions (conceptions). If I say 'My beautiful rose', one does not reach out to smell it as though I had introduced it.

Just as we could imagine that in times of old, some folk did mess up with the idea that what was being refered, in this case the sound of rose, or the word r-o-s-e itself, was somehow understood identical with its referent, in our own times we can highlight the same mistake ocurring, as when folk view adverts, photos, films, art, news, media reports, and so on. Evidently, huge numbers of people still mess up thinking the signifier is somehow considered identical with the signified. Here is such an example (the words below are there to help one realise their mistake if they happen to make one):

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/Images/not-a-cow.gif

Is it conceivable to imagine that what is being argued is perhaps the signified (meaning) of the signifier (the symbol, word, sound, image), although it may sometimes refer to referents (things), is more an abstraction (concept) in the mind. So signifieds are not things, but at best the notion of things. In this manner, one could now argue that signs per se (signifier/signified) are themselves vehicles for abstraction. So much so, that a large part of human behaviour is about the way we perform towards our abstractions (conceptions). If I say 'My beautiful rose', one does not reach out to smell it as though I had introduced it.

Would you please give an example (or even two!) of such assertions? I must have missed them. In any case, has anyone, to your knowledge actually asserted that words are identical with what they represent? Instance? This very much looks to me like a straw man.

This reminds me of all the times, when relating a particular experience to another, as we reach the end of the tale we conclude " I guess you had to be there"

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 04:57 PM ----------



The fundamental reality is matter, or energy, or mind, etc. etc. The whole concept of the "fundamental reality" is an abstraction. And somewhat absurd, even if also attractive in its way.

If we are going to play the fundamental game, I think that this game is best played by breaking reality down to sensation, emotion, conception. But all of these are conceptions, for we on this forum are operating primarily within that aspect of reality. "Reality" is one of the master abstractions that attempt to unify everything. Now that's almost tautologous, because we have quite a collection of such concepts, and it's such an abstract concept that its hard to narrow down, which is the point of it. The set of all sets. Abstractions are something like sets.

The television is a set of sensations, expectations, causal relations, associated emotions. Philosophy is another such set, and it has a different living meaning for everyone, presumably.