Talk:Meaning/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Disambig This article has been rated as dab-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Meaning/Archive 2, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Talk:Meaning/Archive1 up to end 2004

Contents

Merge

Thinking of merging this article with "the meaning of meaning". Thoughts? Lucidish 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Keeping and deleting which? Banno 20:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep "meaning", scrap "meaning of meaning" (which was a larryism). Lucidish 15:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, please do. Banno 20:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Done and done. Lucidish 01:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Context

Introduction to this article is too technical for the average bear. It would be great if someone could rewrite it, explaining all the jargon. The Singing Badger 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I just compared the article now to its version from September 2005, and I must say that now it seems much simpler and clearer to me. So, I think the context tag could be removed. Any disagreement? WhiteC 14:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Just Philosophy?

I am not sure that I am willing to accept that this should be purely a philosophy article. This bears strongly on many important subjects, including religion, psychology, sociology, and so forth. Furthermore, I have innocently prepared a massive edit for the introduction to address these issues and to make "navel contemplation" more accessible for ordinary people. I also have a couple of bibliographic references from my college days, which were a very long time ago. The point of the references is to provide verification for some of the statements I am introducing to the introduction. Now, of course, I am thinking of saving my introduction to "meaning" for my children. They always enjoy my writings, maybe, sort of. Bob 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. The philosophy section at the moment is large, and some other viewpoints in addition to linguistics would be good. As long as these definitions of meaning aren't just your personal views, go for it. WhiteC 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to hear your proposals of non-philosophical analyses of meaning, though I'm not certain that such a thing exists. Lucidish 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
To a philosopher, everything looks like philosophy. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The only thing drawing me to this article is the sheer weakness of the introduction. Now I am recognizing a similar weakness in my own definitions and distinctions, such as between a "thought" and a "meaning". Since I am not a certified expert in these definitions and since I wish to avoid the obvious trap of endless navel gazing about "meaning", I think I need to just stay away. It has been interesting, if not illuminating. Bob 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you're comfortable with, but help and feedback is always appreciated. Lucidish 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I have compromised by creating a personal "sandbox" so that you will be able to see what I have in mind. It is located at user:dunning/meaning. Feel free to comment or, better still, just take what you like. This way I don't have to feel like I am holding out on you with items of little value. I have also looked at the remainder of the article and I am wondering if some of the topics might better be references to more complete discussions in a primary article. The topic "semiotics" is an example. Bob 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Good ideas; I was thinking about shuffling stuff off to other articles, too. There's way too much material in the article just now.
Also, your writeup seems to be along the lines of sociology/symbolic interactionism. That's valid, and a primary research interest of mine, but it's not immediately clear to me how to bring that notion of meaning together with the more philosophical-linguistic one(s). The trouble is introducing a notion of meaning that doesn't, in some way, talk about "signs" or "symbols" etc.
It may be worthwhile either to create a disambiguation page and link to two articles on two different kinds of meaning (linguistic and non-linguistic) or try to merge both ideas into this article. Lucidish 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sophisticate, I am a dilettante. I have not written from an established point of view but drawn upon my wide ranging background and experience of what people in general think "meaning" is. The sociology stuff comes from having an ancient (1971) degree in Sociology. I list it as a matter of information, not because I really think it has merit. I find the stats for the Berger book highly amusing [1].
My goal is to make the intro something that most people could read, enjoy, and understand. They might even learn something about the more relevant things that the sciences and other fields are saying about meaning. I think your distinctions are too subtle for someone like me, although a disambiguation page would be very interesting. I would like to see an intro something like mine followed by a disambiguation page that would launch people full on into the various "whichness of what"s.
One of those reference articles could be that "meaning of life" subject that disappeared. There is a lot of relevance to clinical depression, for instance, in the concept "meaning of life". There are questions that religions have been trying to address since the very beginning. That relevance and history could be documented.
I have been having too much fun here, and I have had to remove some of the items that were the most fun. The best example in this case is the parallel that I drew (and discarded) between classic linguistics (with its dichotomy between syntax and semantics) and the Diamond Sutra of the Buddhists. In the Diamond Sutra, the dichotomy is similar but the goal is to stamp out the endless churning of the intellect - for in form is nothingness, and in nothingness there is crystalline form. Along the way one receives an education about the distinction between syntax and semantics as the subject is literally beaten to death. This endless churning of the mind, of course, is the great pitfall in examining "meaning". As I said, I have been having way too much fun. Bob 06:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the "meaningfulness" idea is associated with literature (for example) on personal identity, including some stuff by Erik Erikson, etc. It's just that the sense of "meaning", here, isn't used to talk about communication between people involving signs, but rather it has more to do with the person's interpretations of the world and their goals.
The "meaning of life" idea seemed a bit too far out to keep in this article, which is presently about linguistic meaning. But again, the stuff you've mentioned and written about are all valid, and have traditions of their own. I'm just trying to figure where they fit in the big picture. Lucidish 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we are going to end up with the disambiguation page. This should be great fun: a disambiguation page for "meaning". That would certainly match the style of what I have been writing so far.
You get points for patience with my idiocy. I have been debating today with another friend about whether meaning exists independently of semiotics. It is starting to look like a definition issue. Do we know enough about how people think to come up with clear definitions that distinguish meaning from other internal ruminations? My sense of common usage is that meaning does not require communication. My friend's sense is that meaning only exists in the context of communication. He mentioned Benjamin Worf who hypothesized that we are unable to perceive a meaning without words to go with it. My friend also mentioned that people maintain an internal model of what other people know and understand so that our own sense of meaning is inextricably wound up in our communications with other people.
Meanwhile I kept thinking of cats for some reason. I also recall that one theory of autism posits a deficiency in the "theory of mind" about other people. The (often successful) remedy is to teach ways to compensate for that lack. More seemingly innate meaning within the human mind? Bob 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon reflection, a disambig page won't be necessary, I don't think. It seems that, to a large extent, the generic associations that a person accumulates (independently of some immediate communication or whathaveyou) might be a sort of "natural meaning". At least, that seems to fit the more Weberian or Eriksonian sense of meaning. Lucidish 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Watching and waiting with interest. Bob 23:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the question of whether meaning can be distinguished from symbols is fairly controversial, and that different theories of meaning should be clearly labeled. WhiteC 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only go on what I know from sociology and philosophy of language. And, at least for linguistic meaning, the use of signs seems to be an essential component. But there are other senses of the word. The only things I've read that have give a disambiguating treatment between linguistic meaning and the other sorts of meaning we might be interested in were by Paul Grice (the natural/non-natural distinction) and some stuff by Geoffrey Leech. Can you think of anyone else who might have waded into this territory? Lucidish 01:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to put the decision on whether or not to split the article up to a consensus check. I can't decide. Lucidish 02:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How would you propose to divy this page up? Some of the linguistic content probably should be merged into the relevant pages, but I'm not sure that it should be eliminated from this page. Is the philosophy of language comprehensible without some background in linguistic theory? Unfortunately, "meaning" is a very complex topic and any page on it is probably going to reflect that. There is a serious need to clean-up / make more easily accessible the contents of this page, but I don't think it should be split up. In fact, I think an in-depth overview is probably a good thing — and this article is an excellent introduction. Anyways, that's my two cents, for whatever its worth. Ig0774 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC). Sorry about all the edits.
The basic issue is that we don't know whether this page should be about linguistic meaning only, or about both linguistic meaning (i.e., "'Cat' means cat") and experiential/episodic meaning (i.e., "Cats mean something special to me"). All of the material thus far is only about the former and not the latter. I'm giving serious thought towards a disambiguation page again but the two sound as if they have a relationship that I'm overlooking. Lucidish 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Accolade

I am not a native English speaker, and not a linguist either. However, in my modest layman opinion, the article is absolutely brillant.

It is very organized and not really difficult to understand. The fact that much of the structuring of the text follows the historical line of scientific research, and is connected with information about the relevant researchers, helps to memorize it.

Thank you! --Canabbaia 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies: influx of material

Sorry, but I had to transfer a lot of material away from the philosophy of language article and place it here. There may now be a lot of overlapping material that will need to be made coherant. Lucidish 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Turned to a disambig page

Most of the previous material has now found its way to Meaning (linguistic). Some of the other stuff will find its way to Meaning (non-linguistic).

I like this very much.
I think a better split might be between the focus on the intentional communication/linguistics [of meaning] and a focus on perceived personal meaning. I am certainly much happier with the current approach than the previous approach that just ignored personal meaning.
I am better understanding the controversy now. Last night at dinner my (philosophy minor) friend asked for an example of non-linguistic meaning. I tried to suggest it (badly) by saying "I will now show you the meaning of pain!". His response was, "Your real intent is that you will now show me the meaning of the word <pain>". The whole problem with discussing non-linguistic meaning is that the discussion is biased by the media of discussion: language. Furthermore, no record of personal meaning survives except as it has been transmitted through language, another source of bias. The extreme Whorfian hypothesis does not become true for me unless I consider that the whole universe is a linguistic message sent to me by God. In that case the "hammer" is language and everything looks like words ("nails"). It is appealing to my ego; it is a way of looking at things; but is it true? For various reasons I don't think so. It looks too much like a writer's bias rather than a painter's bias or a musician's bias. Besides, Gödel would not approve.
Here is where I should reference the New Testatment and the first verses of John. "In the beginning was the Word...". (I have too much fun.)
By all means, personal meaning can and should be written about on the non-linguistic page. That attempt to explain meaning to your friend was funny, thanks. I think the idea can be settled in someone's mind when you provide an example like, "This movie meant such-and-such to me": in which case, meaning is interpretation. That outlook also seems to capture the intuitions about a sense of personal meaning.
Those puzzles you mention are certainly troublesome, and ultimately will survive any example that can be put forward. (Though currently most folks tend to see the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as naive or overly Orwellian.) However, I think good examples will at least make the meaning of "personal meaning" understandable. Lucidish 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should let the disambiguation alternatives develop for a while and see what falls out?
For sure, so long as the links don't overlap, creating redundant material. Lucidish 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The triangle needs more context

OK, the article looks much better. But what is a sign-construct-thing triangle? Is it semantics jargon or somebody's established theory? It needs to be more clearly explained (ie: more context), or to have a link to something relevant (not just to sign, construct and thing separately). WhiteC 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. Aren't disambiguation pages supposed to be in list form? Lucidish 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro definition of "meaning"

I won't revert it again. I'll just unwatch this page. But, for the record:

  1. Meaning isn't a thing.
  2. Meaning doesn't provide.
  3. Meaning doesn't provide order.
  4. Meaning doesn't provide boundary or boundaries.
  5. Meaning doesn't provide direction or directions.
  6. Meaning doesn't provide anything to a representation of the meaning.

Please check the disambiguated pages for confirmation, or just think about the meaning of "cow".
Velho 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sociology WikiProject

I am hoping that the improvements will consist (at most) in adding an article called "Meaning (sociological)" to the list. Bob 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some types of meaning not mentioned in the list. Perhaps an overview article is needed which summarizes various senses and uses of "meaning" (and major debates about such) in philosophy, the humanities, and social sciences. Perhaps meaning (social theory) would be a place for such discussion as the practice of social theory tends to draw on work from many disciplines. --Reswik 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be the way that I would do it. You will want to read the first two articles to make sure they do not cover the subjects you believe are missing. That would be where I would concentrate my own editing efforts since non-linguistic and linguistic would seem to divide the world into exactly two pieces. Each of those articles would benefit from editing with a "social theory" perspective. I would not oppose, however, someone adding a "social theory" article. Bob 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on skimming pages, I don't think the meaning (linguistic/nonlinguistic), interpretation, ontology, semantics, and value pages cover the domains of social theory in relation to meaning and knowledge which of which I am thinking.
Language is obviously a very important dimension of meaning construction but so are various other dimensions of society and society in general, in which language and meaning are embeded. A subsection of a linguistics/nonlinguistic distinction page might not be the best location to organize social theories of meaning and knowledge.
Regarding social theories about meaning, I am thinking of: weber on verstehen, symbolic interactionism, mannheim on sociology of knowledge, Alfred Schutz on social phenomenology and the related work of berger & luckmann on social construction of reality, habermas on communicative action, foucault on power-knowledge, several contemporary theories in science studies, etc. Individual theorist pages and sociology of knowledge and various social theory pages do discuss some of these theories or the general types of theories that might touch on meaning. (I've looked at over 500 sociology/social theory pages and most of those are stubs/starts, skimpy in general.) It seems worthwhile to have an overview page on meaning -- though it is possible I missed some of the content out there somewhere in WP and it just needs to be indexed somehow.
The truth page does mention a few of these perspectives/theorists (not necessarily directly about meaning). The Knowledge page mostly does not. The epistemology page does not. The constructivist epistemology page mostly does not. I am wondering perhaps if the meaning page could be an overview page, like knowledge and truth. If the material mentioned above does not emerge with further searching, perhaps the list currently on the page could be moved to a meaning (disambig) page linked from the top of the "meaning" page, as is often the case in WP. But, perhaps this is something for later consideration, once a page of social theories of meaning is developed. --Reswik 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I like your plan. I am looking forward to seeing the article on Meaning (social theory), or "overview", or whatever you decide. If you decide to write an overview then I suggest that you incorporate the basics of the literature on philosophical meaning, or recruit someone to help you with that. There are also some other divergent definitions of meaning that should be referenced, like biosemiotics. On the other hand, perhaps you are really talking about socially constructed knowledge or reality? Be careful, there is quicksand hereabouts. Bob 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

There are now very many articles about elements of pop culture (music bands, albums, books) that have the word "meaning" in their titles. I have resisted adding them to this article. I am worried that we will be buried in trivia. I suppose we could add a "Media" heading to the list. There are already a few entries along those lines. Bob 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archived this page. Bry9000 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.