What is speech?

@D bowden,

D_bowden;98364 wrote:

This seems to make sense. So God exists in the sense that it is refered to as being omnipotent, omniscient, all good being.

This is where i get a little confused though. If i didn't know what a chair was for example and asked someone to explain to me what a chair is and the answer they gave me was that a chair is not a table would i know what a chair is? Or if they carried on to explain that a chair is also not many other things would i then understand what a chair is?

The reason i ask is because i've been lead to believe that God is immaterial and timeless and must be because If God were to exist before matter and time then god must be these things. When however i ask what is immaterial i am told it is to have no matter. What is timeless? it is something out of time. This doesn't so much tell me what timeless and immaterial are but what they are not.

Now something all powerfull, good and all seeing appears to be something i can understand. But the more i think about it the more it seems it can't be understood. I don't know what infinite power and goodness is but more what it is not. if this is true then saying God refers to these things means that God doesn't really refer to anything that i know of? It may just be that i am lacking in knowledge. If this is so then can someone please explain what all goodness, all powerfull, all knowing concepts are without telling me what they are not. I understand what they are not but i'm more after an understanding of what they truely are.

What I said was that when we say that God exists, we are just saying that someone with the properties that God is supposed to have exists. But whether or not that is true is a different question. Just as to say that a chair exists is to say that something with the properties that a chair is supposed to have exists. We know that chairs exist, since we know that somethings with the properties that chairs are supposed to have, exist. We do not know that God exists, since we do not know whether anything with the properties that God is supposed to have, exists. But if you think that you know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have exists, then you are a Theist. If you believe that you know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have does not exist, then you are an atheist. And, if you believe that you do not know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have exists, then you are an agnostic. So, we know quite well what it means to say that God exists; that God does not exist; and that we do not know whether or not God exists. We are talking about the properties that God is supposed to have, and whether or not anything has those properties, or whether or not we know that anything has those properties.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;98390 wrote:

What I said was that when we say that God exists, we are just saying that someone with the properties that God is supposed to have exists. But whether or not that is true is a different question. Just as to say that a chair exists is to say that something with the properties that a chair is supposed to have exists. We know that chairs exist, since we know that somethings with the properties that chairs are supposed to have, exist. We do not know that God exists, since we do not know whether anything with the properties that God is supposed to have, exists. But if you think that you know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have exists, then you are a Theist. If you believe that you know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have does not exist, then you are an atheist. And, if you believe that you do not know that something with the properties that God is supposed to have exists, then you are an agnostic. So, we know quite well what it means to say that God exists; that God does not exist; and that we do not know whether or not God exists. We are talking about the properties that God is supposed to have, and whether or not anything has those properties, or whether or not we know that anything has those properties.

Thanks

I think we are far enough down the rabit hole for now as to the meaning of words! This disscussion has helped a lot! i would indeed like to talk some more about what kind of thing God is and what kind of things God is supposed to be but for now i need to think!

1 Reply

@D bowden,

D_bowden;98417 wrote:

Thanks I think we are far enough down the rabit hole for now as to the meaning of words! This disscussion has helped a lot! i would indeed like to talk some more about what kind of thing God is and what kind of things God is supposed to be but for now i need to think!

To ask about the nature of existence is, of course, to ask about the meaning of the word, "exist", but it is not only to ask about the meaning of the word, "exist". After all, you are using words, so don't I have to talk about words? But just because I am talking about words, that does not mean that I am talking only about words. I am also talking about what they mean.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;98333 wrote:

If the person knows what the word, "chair" means, then why are you explaining the meaning of the word "chair" to him?

I wouldn't have to, and that was the point. Most people understand what a chair is.

Quote:

In any case, the meaning of the word, "chair" is not a chair. Chairs are what the term "chair" refers to. The meaning of the word "chair" is "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and sometimes arm rests, for use by one person". You can point to the referent of the term, "chair", but not to its meaning. The meaning of the word, "chair", consists in how it is used by fluent English speakers.

Did you honestly think I was saying I could point to a "meaning"? If I pointed to a chair and said, "This is the meaning of chair", of course it would be understood that I was speaking about what the term refers to, wouldn't it? How else would one interpret this? Would you look at me confused and have to make the clarification that I wasn't mistaking the meaning of the chair for the referent of the term? I think you would understand me.

Quote:

An ostensive definition of a word is a definition only in the sense that it may be able to get someone to understand what the word means. But, that may be dicey.

In the case of "chair", what's dicey? Ostensive definitions aren't always ambiguous, like you say. There's intersubjectivity regarding what the term "chair" refers to; the majority of people can grasp the concept quite easily. If I point to a chair, do you think most people will not understand what I'm denoting? Do you think most people would assume I'm speaking about a whale or a pack of gum?

[QUOTE=D_Bowden]But you can't point at God? Or truth or goodness. You can see these things or sense them in any way.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying one could. Where did I type this? Clearly it's much harder to provide an ostensive definition for some words, namely those which are defined solely by metaphysical properties. A metaphysical notion defined only by metaphysical properties is a bit dfificult to pinpoint, don't you think?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;98474 wrote:

I wouldn't have to, and that was the point. Most people understand what a chair is.

Did you honestly think I was saying I could point to a "meaning"? If I pointed to a chair and said, "This is the meaning of chair", of course it would be understood that I was speaking about what the term refers to, wouldn't it? How else would one interpret this? Would you look at me confused and have to make the clarification that I wasn't mistaking the meaning of the chair for the referent of the term? I think you would understand me quite well.

In the case of "chair", what's dicey? Ostensive definitions aren't always ambiguous, like you say. There's intersubjectivity regarding what the term "chair" refers to; the majority of people can grasp the concept quite easily. If I point to a chair, do you think most people will not understand what I'm denoting? Do you think most people would assume I'm speaking about a whale or a pack of gum?

I wasn't saying one could. Where did I type this?

A lot of people fail to distinguish between the meaning a word, and, its referent (if any). And they even think that in order for the word to have a meaning, it must have a referent. I would not understand you if you pointed to a chair and told me that the chair was the meaning of "chair". But, whether or not I would understand you, the chair is not the meaning of "chair" and to say so would be false, although I might, using the principle of charity, interpret you differently. The fact that I might interpret you in some way would not mean that you were not, in fact, saying what was false.

I was saying that ostensive definitions were ambiguous because it need not be clear what you were pointing to. Not because you might be pointing to something else. There is a difference. In other words, in order for me to know that when you were pointing to a fire-truck and saying, "that's red" that you were pointing to a color and not to the truck itself, I have to be making a lot of assumptions which I may not be making. A person who knew nothing about geometry would not understand when I pointed at a square and said, that is a right angle, although he might understand that I wasn't pointing at a whale.

And, as I pointed out, too, an ostensive definition would not be helpful when you try to explain the meaning to the word, "although".

1 Reply

@D bowden,

kennethamy wrote:

I was saying that ostensive definitions were ambiguous because it need not be clear what you were pointing to. Not because you might be pointing to something else. There is a difference. In other words, in order for me to know that when you were pointing to a fire-truck and saying, "that's red" that you were pointing to a color and not to the truck itself, I have to be making a lot of assumptions which I may not be making. A person who knew nothing about geometry would not understand when I pointed at a square and said, that is a right angle, although he might understand that I wasn't pointing at a whale.

But it's often clear what we point to. And if it's clear what we point to, chances are the ostensive definition will be understood, especially with common objects such as chairs. If, for some reason, the person didn't understand that I was pointing at the chair, I could clarify with a host of other descriptors. Moreover, if they didn't understand what I was pointing to, this is their fault or my fault, not the fault of the ostensive definition (in most cases). Ostensive definitions can be ambiguous, but they need not be. I think we understand eachother.

Quote:

And, as I pointed out, too, an ostensive definition would not be helpful when you try to explain the meaning to the word, "although".

Clearly. But what has this to do with our conversation? You're simply acknowledging that some words don't have ostensive definitions.

Quote:

A lot of people fail to distinguish between the meaning a word, and, its referent (if any). And they even think that in order for the word to have a meaning, it must have a referent. I would not understand you if you pointed to a chair and told me that the chair was the meaning of "chair". But, whether or not I would understand you, the chair is not the meaning of "chair" and to say so would be false, although I might, using the principle of charity, interpret you differently. The fact that I might interpret you in some way would not mean that you were not, in fact, saying what was false.

One definition of meaning is, "the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase"

Wouldn't this fit with what I would be referring to if I said, "This is the meaning of chair", and pointed to a chair?

Are you sure "meaning" is always in reference to language?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;98485 wrote:

But it's often clear what we point to. And if it's clear what we point to, chances are the ostensive definition will be understood, especially with common objects such as chairs. If, for some reason, the person didn't understand that I was pointing at the chair, I could clarify with a host of other descriptors. Moreover, if they didn't understand what I was pointing to, this is their fault or my fault, not the fault of the ostensive definition (in most cases). Ostensive definitions can be ambiguous, but they need not be. I think we understand eachother.

Clearly. But what has this to do with our conversation? You're simply acknowledging that some words don't have ostensive definitions.

One definition of meaning is, "the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase"

Wouldn't this fit with what I would be referring to if I said, "This is the meaning of chair", and pointed to a chair?

Are you sure "meaning" is always in reference to language?

If the person knows what you are supposed to be pointing at, then, of course, he will understand. But not if he doesn't. So, ostensive definitions are not as good as verbal definitions. And, of course, it isn't that some words don't have referents. Most words don't.

The term "meaning" is ambiguous as between reference and sense. See Gottlieb Frege's famous paper, "On Sense and Reference". It is (I believe) on the Net.

We are talking about linguistic meaning. There are, of course, other kinds of meaning. For instance in the sentence, "dark clouds mean rain", or, "love has a lot of meaning for Peggy". Or, "Susie means a great deal to me".

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;98479 wrote:

A lot of people fail to distinguish between the meaning of a word, and, its referent (if any). And they even think that in order for the word to have a meaning, it must have a referent.

Are there any words for which it is true that, in order for the word to have a meaning, it must have an existent referent? I am thinking particularly of words such as "time" and "reality", which refer to something unique and irreducible.

Does it make sense to say (as some people do) "time does not exist" or "reality does not exist" or "there is no such thing as reality"? I can understand what "mermaids do not exist" means (it means that the concept of mermaid is not instantiated in the world), but what can "time does not exist" possibly mean? Can we have the concept of time without the existence of time?

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;106166 wrote:

Are there any words for which it is true that, in order for the word to have a meaning, it must have an existent referent? I am thinking particularly of words such as "time" and "reality", which refer to something unique and irreducible.

Does it make sense to say (as some people do) "time does not exist" or "reality does not exist" or "there is no such thing as reality"? I can understand what "mermaids do not exist" means (it means that the concept of mermaid is not instantiated in the world), but what can "time does not exist" possibly mean? Can we have the concept of time without the existence of time?

1. How about "this" and "that"? Bertrand Russell called them, "logically proper names" because (he said) if they are meaningful, then they cannot fail to refer.

2. I think that the proposition that time does not exist makes sense. But that it is false. It could not be false unless it made sense, and it certainly seems to be false.

0 Replies

@D bowden,

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

What is a word?

An object/meaning association. Word as object. Thought as meaning.

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

Do words really have meaning?

No. Words cannot "have". They are man made tools used for the purpose of description. Descriptions are representations of thought. Thought IS Meaning.

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

What would our thoughts be like without words?

They wouldn't be like anything. Without words, they wouldn't even be. No thinking may be thought without a language (code) to think that thought upon. This is not to confuse experiential awareness with thought.

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

Can a word really have the same meaning between any two people...

Yes, but not quite like how you phrased it. Words cannot "have". But they may be used to represent the same meaning between any two (or more) people.

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

...and how can we know this without using words?

We cannot. We cannot even know this with using words alone. The only way to "know this" is with codified instrumentation. When traffic control transmits, "approach N, 250mph, 10 degrees decent", and the pilot receives, "approach N, 250mph, 10 degrees decent", the only way we can really know, is when the pilot enters that information into his instrumentation. If the transmitted information is identical to the codified instrumentation information, then we "know" that the words have represented the same meaning to both traffic control and the pilot.

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

Do words limit us more than help us if they are infintely ambigous?

Words, cannot be "infinitely ambiguous". Words are an object/meaning association. In this case, the word is the object, and the thought is the meaning. One very specifically references the other.

0 Replies

@D bowden,

D_bowden;98309 wrote:

Now a word seems to be simply a sound made by the vocal cords. Can a sound have meaning? Or does the meaning remain in my mind. Also wouldnt the meaning be the same despite any sound i make? I can call a dog a dog but if i thought the word for a "dog" was "cat" (i know this would be unusual) then the meaning seems to be the same despite what i call it. However the meaning you interperate from the word can be quite different. How can we be sure that we both associate the same meaning with sounds (words) we make? Is this impossible?

IMO, We can't be 100% sure, but we can be sure enough by looking at social practice. Just think of children learning the names of things, and how much pointing and grabbing is involved. Reward and punishment is strongly connected to word use.
The more abstract words get, the more difficult to be sure that we "mean" the same thing. High-level poetry/literature is often intentionally suggestive and ambiguous. Check out this book: Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Objective correlative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also interesting, T.S. Eliot's objective correlative.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114335 wrote:

IMO, We can't be 100% sure, but we can be sure enough by looking at social practice. Just think of children learning the names of things, and how much pointing and grabbing is involved. Reward and punishment is strongly connected to word use.
The more abstract words get, the more difficult to be sure that we "mean" the same thing. High-level poetry/literature is often intentionally suggestive and ambiguous. Check out this book: Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Objective correlative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also interesting, T.S. Eliot's objective correlative.

If we don't associate the same meaning with the word we find out because we miscommunicate. If I say I am going to Paris, and I mean Paris, Texas and not, Paris, France, it does not take long to discover that we do not mean the same thing by, "Paris". And, of course, some very funny things can be written about that, like Abbott and Costello's subtle skit, "Who's on first". Abbott and Costello, Who's on first? audio and text

Exactly what is the problem, though?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;114381 wrote:

If I say I am going to Paris, and I mean Paris, Texas and not, Paris, France, it does not take long to discover that we do not mean the same thing by, "Paris".

We find out by looking at practice. If I am telling a German in bad German that I hate chocolate while eating a snickers, he's going to assume that I'm joking or using the wrong word. He will have to look at my facial expression, etc. Words must be considered in relation to behavior, including gesture and voice-tone.

0 Replies

@D bowden,

What is a word? A combination of vocal expressions, formed by the (bone thingy which I can't remember and are 1 of the things that makes us superior in speech over most other animals) and tounge.

Only in historical time, we have put words into letters.

Do words really have meaning? Ofcause it is, else they could't provoke emotions, like love, hate ..etc.

What would our thoughts be like without words? No different than what mute can learn by their useage of hand signs (dunno english word)

Can a word really have the same meaning between any two people and how can we know this without using words? Depends on how well the 2 persons studied in school, their mental state, ambition, or experience in life ..etc.

I said NO! Ooooh he means yes! ..NO!

Do words limit us more than help us if they are infintely ambigous? Infinitivly ambigious? ..give example please!

0 Replies

@D bowden,

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

Somebody please help...

I can't get my head around these ideas of speech:

What is a word?
Do words really have meaning?

Can a word really have the same meaning between any two people and how can we know this without using words?

D_bowden;98309 wrote:

Now a word seems to be simply a sound made by the vocal cords. Can a sound have meaning? Or does the meaning remain in my mind. Also wouldnt the meaning be the same despite any sound i make? I can call a dog a dog but if i thought the word for a "dog" was "cat" (i know this would be unusual) then the meaning seems to be the same despite what i call it. However the meaning you interperate from the word can be quite different. How can we be sure that we both associate the same meaning with sounds (words) we make? Is this impossible?

Discussing about speech as matter of words is very tricky. And what is meaning is very tricky too.
Actually I am weak in this field, but I'll try to summarize what I know about it (probably exposing myself to harsh criticism).

Logicians use propositions as bricks in their theories - at least as far as I know.
According to their view, single words get to a (share of ) meaning only when they are set in propositions (according to certain rules) that can be assessed - i.e. it is possible to say or compute if they are true or false.

Indeed logicians also discuss about the function of words in a sentence, but this is not yet their meaning, it's a mapping.

A single word sentence need to be translated into a proposition in order to become meaningful.
So ?water!? could be translated into ?give me water? (which in classical logic is a proposition that cannot be assessed) or ?there is water here? (that according to some semantic model could be true or false).
(Clearly, outside any context, there may be countless interpretations about what a single word is meant to say).
Actually the same could be said also about inarticulate sounds uttered under certain circumstances, like ?Doh?, which indeed represents a (class of) proposition(-s).

This seems not to explain the natural practice of language (and most logicians have not such a claim). Those that wanted to explain natural language through logic commonly adopted the position that what can't be assessed as true or false has no real meaning, at most it would convey some feeling or state of mind that the receiver would only guess. Meaningfulness is only the adherence to facts and ultimately lies in truth or falsity. So it can be decided if two people mean the same thing only as long as they refer to the same verifiable fact.

I don't live in that world - as I guess you don't. But if you want to obtain a theory of meaning relying exclusively on some "internal" view of language, I guess that eventually you get there (considering meaningless the vast majority of what you hear or say).
The second Wittgenstein adopted the view that meaning relies heavily on extra-verbal elements and semiologists agree. According to this view a speech is an act with a purpose - and both the act and the purpose are influenced by a context.

This theory could work very well in the case of God.
Talking about God may be trying to define or find out predicates of God at face value, but actually it is not. Talking about God has a different aim, it's the purpose that crafts the speech.

D_bowden;98309 wrote:

When people communicate what is really taking place? I know we exchange words but isn't this simply making noises to each other and then assuming a meaning for those noises? Does this assumption become more and more inaccuate as the meaning of the words become more complex. If i told someone i saw a dog then would they really know what i mean? how big is this dog? what color? There a many kinds of dogs and it seems no two dogs are excactly the same. I know this doesnt really matter if they dont quite picture the same dog i mean but when it comes to asking someone what is truth then it seems an enormous task to even understand what that person means by truth. How can we even come close? wouldn't this take hours of disscusion to assume that we both understand the word or sound truth to be the same thing? What about asking someone the meaning of God? This would be harder again between two people. What seems even more impossible is getting millions of people to understand the word or sound God to be the same thing!! Exspecially if God is meant to be immaterial and timeless. How do you picture this? Can you picture this? Does anyone actually believe God to be the same thing or are there just millions of kinds of Gods?

(Default) assumptions do play a role in what you make up as meaning, the context does. (Try to move this thread to a forum about cooking and you'll see :-).
Your questions and doubts are fully justified to me. It's a mystery. I rely on theories assuming a huge role of extra-verbal elements to explain how communication is possible and takes place (and yet I doubt that they can ever be verified - in fact I believe that nothing can ever be verified).

D_bowden;98309 wrote:

Also if you can't picture what God IS only what God is NOT then doesn't anyone's belief in God become believing what God isnt?? Does it matter if we all believe in slightly different Gods? If someone believes God to be good but there interperation of good is not the same as many other people's interpertation of good then doesn't it become irrelevant that they believe in God? If you can't answer clearly and concisely what God is and still claim to believe in God then doesn't this become the same as not quite knowing what you believe in? It seems we need to know how to use words properly to even become close.

Any thoughts?

Totally agree. And I guess that most believers in Judaism would agree too. (Words about the God of Jews have a huge importance to them - and they seem to be very careful when using them.)

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

What would our thoughts be like without words?

Are you sure they are "your" thoughts? Maybe they are the words' thoughts...

D_bowden;98217 wrote:

Do words limit us more than help us if they are infintely ambigous?

Regardless the ambiguity of words, I think language does shape people.
As a slogan, I would say ?People don't use language, language uses people?, but don't take me too seriously on this, it's just a slogan.

0 Replies

What is speech?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know