John said: Words mean what they mean by reason of a negotiation between two or more. Words mean just what the worder intends when the worder is talking to himself.
Matt: I think you're right (and the best philosophies of language are working out the systematic consequences of this, like Robert Brandom), but think of this distinct possibility--what if the worder herself isn't sure what she intends? Some people might think that's just plain incoherence, babble or something, but I don't think so--I think many of the greatest lines we repeat to ourselves, the genius behind them wasn't totally sure what she meant. John said: Philosophy uses words which get their meaning from dictionaries which get their definitions from common usage in works of literature which come from an author's head. Matt: That's funny, and I take your point, but I think the great philosophers were as creative and poetic as the great writers one finds in Literature Departments, as opposed to Philosophy Departments. For instance, drawing together the last two things, when Kant introduced "Vorstellung" in the Critique of Pure Reason, which we translate as "representation," I don't think even he knew quite what he exactly meant, and it was absolutely a term of art (even if German itself is richer for words English renders as "representation," meaning he already was working with a more refined pallet in that particular case). If Kant had lived to read P.F. Strawson, I think he would have learned a lot about what he had meant. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
