Talk:The Meaning of Meaning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This is my first new article edit, though far from complete so far. But I hope the opening quotes alone would be worthy of note and use. Have an insanely good time. --KYPark 18:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I don't know if it's a good idea to call the differentiation between ideas, symbols, and the 'real world' an innovation of this book. While the distinction might have been made in this book, it's certainly been around a while. (if the innovative part of their use of this distinction is something specific, it should be made clear) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.203.15 (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The meaning of the word

On June 3, 2005, an anonymous person 151.197.218.220 inserted the following capitalized passages under the section Supplementary essays, which would not be a right place for them. On June 17, 2005, Pinzo reasonably reverted to the previous state. Those passages may not be worth part of the article but discussion. So I recovered them from history as follows:

MEANING OF THE WORD....TRUTH!!!

IN 1965 SERVED ON A FEDERAL JURY. PRIOR TO START OF TRIAL, JUDGE REMARKED TO JURY..."YOUR RESPONSIBILITY HERE IS TO LISTEN TO EACH SIDE OF TESTIMONY. YOU ARE TO TAKE NO NOTES. YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE, INCLUDING YOUR FELLOW JURORS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL, YOU WILL RETIRE TO THE JURY ROOM TO DELIBERATE THE TESTIMONY YOU HAVE HEARD AND REMEMBERED. THEN YOU WILL DETERMINE THE TRUE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND DELIVER A VERDICT."

MY MIND WAS ILL AT EASE WITH THE JUDGE'S REMARKS SINCE I BELIEVED TRUTH WAS FACT. LATER IN THE TRIAL, I CAME TO THE REALIZATION NOT ONE OF US EMPANELED COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE TIME THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, SO WE COULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF F A C T! THEREFORE, OUR COMMISSION WAS TO LISTEN TO ALL TESTIMONY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHICH TESTIMONY WE BELIEVED TO BE BASED ON FACT. IN SHORTER TERMS, I BELIEVE TRUTH IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. IT MAY BE BASED ON FACT, OR ON FICTION. BUT, IRRESPECTIVE, WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, TO US, THEN, THAT BECOMES TRUTH. EAGERLY AWAITING REBUTTAL.

--KYPark 7 July 2005 14:24 (UTC) on behalf of 151.197.218.220

[edit] Douglas Hofstadter

Two experts, to explicate Meaning,
Wrote a book called The Meaning of Meaning.
But the world was perplexed!
So three experts wrote next
The Meaning of Meaning of Meaning.
- Douglas Hofstadter

Quoted from Talk:The meaning of meaning
--KYPark 7 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language
reviewed by Tal Cohen. --KYPark 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

[edit] David Bohm & David Peat

Alan Ford & F. David Peat, The Role of Language in Science

David Bohm, has frequently referred to meaning, particularly when talking about his recent experiments with dialogue groups in which "a free flow of meaning" is encouraged. This whole question of meaning, and what we mean by it is clearly of importance and, in particular, the question "What do you mean by language?"

C.K. Ogden and I. A. Richards's classic The Meaning of Meaning8 provides a useful introduction to such questions. Following Odgen and Richards the work of Ludgwig Wittgenstein had made a particularly significant contribution to the notion of meaning in linguistics.9 According to his dictum: Don't look for the meaning, look for the use. Essentially this can be interpreted as saying that meaning is a generalization that doesn't correspond to anything that is actually available in language behavior. What we actually rely upon are individual uses which are themselves interrelated according to a pattern of family resemblances. In this sense words could no more be said to "possess" an intrinsic meaning that is independent of their use than, in Bohr's view, could an electron be said to "possess" an intrinsic position or spin.

--KYPark 7 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)