• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is Meaning?

whitefork

None of the above
whitefork
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
2,326
I posed the question "who determines the meaning of anything?" in one of the religion threads, and thought it might be worth opening a separate discussion on the topic. I haven't been keeping up with the latest trends in semantics and semiotics - all that Post-post-modern, Derrida and Foucault type material gives me a headache. But I think there's something to be gained by talking about words, signs, significance, and meaning. Such concepts cut to the root of language and discourse.

So, what is Meaning? How do signs signify? Is there actually anything to discuss, or is it crystal-clear to everyone?
 
It seems, to me, that meaning in a basic sense is ultimately formed and encased within the individual. From there, depending on what type of 'meaning' we may be discussing, the actions and interactions that we each face mold that meaning into a practical entity.
 
Hello Paradox, thanks for showing up.

If meaning is within each person, how does it emerge into the common world? How do conventional signs acquire their significance?

For example, we recognize that signs have meanings even if we don't know what they might be (linear B, for instance). In that case, meaning appears to be present within the physical object and must be drawn out of it by analysis.
 
Linguistics gets complicated to start with.

How can a word -- say tobacco -- acquire the same meaning for color, smell, taste, etc. as well as for now & for all past and future, events real, hypothetical, imaginary,etc etc.

And even worse, every language has a designated word for tobacco that exactly corresponds across all languages.

Evolution sure pulled off a wonderous (random) trick in this regard! Materialists have no trouble believing anything.
 
Paradox said:
It seems, to me, that meaning in a basic sense is ultimately formed and encased within the individual. From there, depending on what type of 'meaning' we may be discussing, the actions and interactions that we each face mold that meaning into a practical entity.
Click to expand...

And Derrida goes on to argue that this "meaning" is different for different individuals, and also changes over time.
 
For meaning to change, doesn't some component of it have to remain constant? Else how do we measure its changes?

Once a language ceases to be used (Hittite, Latin) does its meaning change for those who study it?
 
whitefork said:
For meaning to change, doesn't some component of it have to remain constant? Else how do we measure its changes?
Click to expand...
If there is no record available (written or otherwise), we can't absolutely be sure of how meanings have changed. If there is, we have to look at the words in context to discern older meanings.

Once a language ceases to be used (Hittite, Latin) does its meaning change for those who study it?
Click to expand...
(My best guess...) It isn't supposed to, but probably does. The denotations of dead words probably hold up best. The connotations probably shift, distort, or are lost over time.

Cheers,
 
Terms are assigned meaning by a combination of correspondence and coherence (which, in a certain context, are actually equivalent). We learn what a word "tree" means by learning the correspondence between the term and the sensory objects it represents, or between the term and other terms (especially the latter for the more abstract concepts". In a certain sense, a meaning of each term is the description of the contexts in which it would be used correctly.

This is where the convergence of coherence and correspondence takes place -- the terms correspond to concepts, and the concepts are defined by the contexts (including sensory 'ponting at it' context) within which they relate to other concepts, and by the nature of those relationships.
 
So Victor, I guess you'd deny any intrinsic nature to terms (meaning that is not assigned by coherence/correspondence), and perhaps have ostension (pointing at) be at the source of meaning? If you can't give a context in which meaning happens, then there is no meaning?

Correct me if I've misstated anything here.

The we might take a look at Jabberwocky and see how nonsense fits into the scheme of things.
 
I'm coming into this one a bit late ... Not because I didn't read the initial post when it was posted, but because I did, and wanted some time to ponder ...

A meaning, to me, is a quality, experience, situation, feeling, sense or other amorphous "thing" that someone attempts to convey and express.

Some things may have global meanings in a very broad sense. The word "love" for example, and other such emotive words. Deeper nuances and connotations, however, will subtly change from group to group and even from person to person. insomuch as we all globally experience these emotions ... in a broad sense ... but perceive the experiences in different ways, so therefore attaching different meanings to certain words and concepts in our own personal way.

Things are things. It is our experiences with those things that color our perception of them, and therefore attribute meaning to them.

Must get more coffee to help clarify my thoughts ...

~~Seelie
 
whitefork

So Victor, I guess you'd deny any intrinsic nature to terms (meaning that is not assigned by coherence/correspondence),
Click to expand...
Of course.

and perhaps have ostension (pointing at) be at the source of meaning?
Click to expand...
it's a type of source of meaning. One could make a case for it being the sole fundamental type, but that's a different topic.

If you can't give a context in which meaning happens, then there is no meaning?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Correct me if I've misstated anything here.
Click to expand...
So far, you seem to not be mistaken about what i said.
 
Is it just me, or is there something highly ironic about asking what the meaning of "meaning" is?

Dr. Stupid
 
I don't think "ironic" is quite the right word for it.

More like "pleonism" (now, that's a great word) or "tautalogy".

You can talk about the nature of nature, for instance. What other words have properties like that?

We have the annual "state of the state" speech, but that's different.
 
whitefork said:
I don't think "ironic" is quite the right word for it.

More like "pleonism" (now, that's a great word) or "tautalogy".

You can talk about the nature of nature, for instance. What other words have properties like that?

We have the annual "state of the state" speech, but that's different.
Click to expand...

The value of value?
The significance of significance?
The utility of utility?
The futility of futility?
The reality of reality?
 
What is what, exactly? Give examples of each kind of what.

After you're done, list all the reasons why.

Then tell me how.

Of course, you'll explain where this all takes place, and when.

And then the reader will understand just who it is doing all this what, where, when, and why. And how.

AS
 
Paradox said:
It seems, to me, that meaning in a basic sense is ultimately formed and encased within the individual. From there, depending on what type of 'meaning' we may be discussing, the actions and interactions that we each face mold that meaning into a practical entity.
Click to expand...

This is about the only correct answer there is. Meaning is determined entirely by the individual, and meaning is only present as long as a sentient being holds it.
 
There is nothing wrong with asking for the meaning of meaning. We have a vague, intuitive idea of what meaning is, and the purpose of such a question is to formaliza our understanding of meaning, to give it sharp boundaries and constraints, thus sifting out stuff that's not really meaningful.

Yes, "what is the meaning of meaning?" is indeed an important question.
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
There is nothing wrong with asking for the meaning of meaning. We have a vague, intuitive idea of what meaning is, and the purpose of such a question is to formaliza our understanding of meaning, to give it sharp boundaries and constraints, thus sifting out stuff that's not really meaningful.

Yes, "what is the meaning of meaning?" is indeed an important question.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is important beyond provoking the conclusion that ultimately it becomes uniquely personal, and thus purely subjective.

That aside, I think Stimpy's rather humorous point was that it is tautological on its face.

It's just as tautological as Clinton's notorious fatuous response in his deposition: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Language ultimately breaks down into atomic parts whose meanings must by definition be axiomatic.

AS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom