" My lengthy earlier posting tried to convey the dangers of suggesting that tools -- whether they be words or wrenches -- have goals, intentions, "meanings".
Is there any purpose in having words ? To say no is absurd, but to say yes is to admit of the words purpose for speech communication, as meaningful information carrier. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:50:51 EDT In a message dated 8/4/10 12:45:03 PM, [email protected] writes: "That seems to refute both Augustine (the 'meaning of the word' is its referent) and you (meanings are associations)," Imago, I realize I have failed to make you "understand" me. I would never say, "meanings are associations". I would say the hearing of an utterance stirs associated notions. I think Augustine has also failed to make you understand him. At no time in the entire Augustine quotation cited by LW does Augustine use any form of "to mean". You write: > I take Wittgensteins builder example to illustrate that the idea of an > associative connection between word and thing is neither necessary nor > sufficient for comprehending the utterances. > It seems to me your take is wrong. When the builder says "Slab!" if the assistant's mind does not connect that sound with his image of a slab, how would he know not to bring a pillar or a block? You write: > the different ways in which eg'slab' is spoken illustrates that the word > itself has no (specific) meaning. > I agree with this. It's what I've been saying all along. You write: > (it is as if the punctuation does more work than the word -- !, ? are the > meanings that are important). > "Pragmatics" -- how a word is said, the context, etc -- are certainly important. The difference between you and me is, I believe, that I would not say different emphases or contexts give an utterance different "meanings". I'd say that the sound or context of the utterance will, in the hearer's mind, cause the retrieval of different associated notions. Meantime I'm sorry you can't agree that when LW talks of "the GOAL of a word" or "the MEANING of a word" his locution harmfully conflates the speaker and the utterance. My lengthy earlier posting tried to convey the dangers of suggesting that tools -- whether they be words or wrenches -- have goals, intentions, "meanings".
