I have difficulty following Cheerskep. We all agree that words do not contain inherent meaning. We ascribe meaning to words. The most common kinds of ascribing are listed in the dictionary. But context also plays a big role. In very precise ascribing, as in philosophy, argumentation is constructed to ascribe special meanings to words in special circumstances. Why does Cheerskep give us a long list of words separated from any context when he knows that as individual words or terms no particular meanings are ascribed and then, surprisingly, refers to that list as proof of his view?
When I choose a tube of paint, say, red, I ask what can be done with this red and then ascribe one of hundreds, probably tens of thousands, of uses for it. But not all possibilities of color are available, only those limited to redness. Yet, green can imply the red not present. Are not words the same? Matisse once did a painting with no red in it. A friend said, "There's no red!" Matisse replied that Yes, but doesn't this painting scream for red?" So even the word not used can be called for by the ascriptions placed in other words. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, April 2, 2010 9:12:48 AM Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" He also left out foopgoom,one of the necessary terms for discussing meaning. Kate Sullivan -----Urspr|ngliche Mitteilung----- Von: William Conger <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Verschickt: Fr., 2. Apr. 2010, 0:55 Thema: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" You left out bubble-headed, content, notion, fuzzy, explanations. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 10:15:54 AM Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" In a message dated 4/1/10 10:52:33 AM, [email protected] writes: > I'm not sure there is an answer that would satisfy CheerskepB because he > is so insistent on literalism. > What's "literalism"? I want descriptions of the notions behind key words in explanations because I've many times in my life seen not just in others but in myself a bubble-headed acceptance of utterances solely because they are familar sounds. Here are a few of the words I was stupidly content with when I heard them and when I used them -- when all the while my notion behind them was fuzzy to the point of making them nearly useless in doing philosophy. TERMS PHILOSOPHERS USE WITH, APPARENTLY, FUZZY NOTIONS IN MIND. Understand Communicate Thought, Thinking Mean, meaning, bthe meaning ofb Of-ness its Refer to, referring, referent About, aboutness Express, expression Sign Truth, true of Error Fact Idea clear bclear ideab, bperfectly clearb image Relations Property Category Is bAccount forb baccount ofb bmake sense ofb denotes stands for, symbolizes, represents to be bwhat is it to b&b&b say saying/said tell, told bfunction asb rules purpose judgment cognition read Why (as in bThe reason why bKarl Marxb means Karl Marxb&b) Because Cause event Have Possess Own Belong deserve give interpretation intent notion Imaginary things (in philosophy): Meaning Idea Concept Fact Truth Statement Saying Relations Property Having Possessing Belonging Own, owning Mine Giving Denoting Designating Naming Signifying Referring Mentioning Expressing Knowing (and knowledge) Understanding Aboutness Truth Clarity Category Explanation Rule Purpose Intending Being (as an action) Disposition belief Satisfy Value
