@wayne,
wayne wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
wayne wrote:
I'm wondering what this thread is about.
My dictionary tells me that nowhere is an ADVERB. An ADVERB is not a person place or thing, a NOUN is a person place or thing, an ADVERB is a word used to modify a verb. Nowhere exists, of course, as an ADVERB and only as an ADVERB. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty.
To say that the adverb "nowhere" exists is to talk about the word, "nowhere" and, of course, the word "nowhere" exists. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether nowhere exists. Just as no one disputes whether the word "unicorn" exists. The question is whether unicorns exist.
It may be that when you say that nowhere exists as an adverb, what you mean is that the adverb, "nowhere" exists. And that is, of course, true. And if you intend to say that only the adverb, "nowhere" exists, but that there is no such thing as a nowhere (just as you might say that only the noun "unicorn" exists, but there are no unicorns, that is true as well.
To dispute whether nowhere exists as one might dispute whether unicorns exist is specious as per rule of language. One could, however, dispute whether, or not, a place called nowhere exists.
When used as a noun, nowhere, must denote a specific or general person place or thing, else the word has no meaning. We need assign meaning to words for them to have any value at all.
Of course , you knew all this.
The word, nowhere, in this thread has been removed from context and divorced from meaning and thrown out there to create a specious argument.
I doubt that was the intention, but that is the only possible result when you do that with a word.
Yes. It is pretty important to distinguish between words and things, and not confuse talking about words with talking about the things (if any) that they refer to. One common error is to think that because a word exist, it must refer to something or other, and then when it is obvious that some words (like "unicorn" or "mermaid") do not refer to anything (since there are no unicorns or mermaids) to go ahead and actually invent something for those words to refer to because you are so convinced that your theory that every word must have a referent is true (despite the obvious fact that theory is false). It is interesting to ask why it is that some holds on to the theory that every word has a referent (despite its obvious falsity) and the answer seems to be that people often confuse two different things: 1. reference, and 2. meaning, and, as a consequence think that unless a word has a referent is does not have a meaning. And, because of this confusion, and (of course) because a word like "unicorn" and "mermaid" have meanings (obviously, they are in the dictionary) they then, according to this bad argument, (must) have referents. Of course, what is the matter with this argument is that one of its premises is false, namely, that because a word has a meaning it (must have a referent) and the reason people believe that is because they believe something else that is false, namely that meaning and reference are the same thing. So what I think you are saying is that those who are confused are confused because they infer from the truth that the word, "nowhere" has a meaning, that the word "nowhere" has a referent. As a consequence, they make up an absurd referent for "nowhere" to have, like "nowhere" refers to everyplace but this place. Thus confusion compounds confusion. The remedy is simple, not be confused in the first place. In particular, not confuse meaning with reference. (As Wittgenstein pointed out, some philosophical problems are like illnesses. You have to diagnose them, find the cause (confusion) and then find the cure, namely, clarification).
