Philosophy Now Forum

So you are saying that it is wrong to say that a hammer has a purpose????? Of course we determine that purpose. SO WHAT!!!!! That has nothing to do with what we are talking about!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Labels have a purpose. For example, if I put "
&2#?€" on 12 things, I could then tell someone to collect everything with a "&2#?€" on it. However "&2#?€" is meaningless because it does not tell me anything about the object.

That is YOUR purpose in using the label. The label can have no purpose itself.

Now you are being silly. Of course we assign purposes to objects. However, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the purpose of a hammer is to nail things.
You really have a talent for the superfluous and trivial! Please lets get back on topic.

I really wish you would READ my posts before commenting on them.
I already addressed your trivial point.
"Yes, symbols are not intrinsically purposeful, we create their purpose."
FROM my post a few back.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Labels have a purpose. For example, if I put "
&2#?€" on 12 things, I could then tell someone to collect everything with a "&2#?€" on it. However "&2#?€" is meaningless because it does not tell me anything about the object.

That is YOUR purpose in using the label. The label can have no purpose itself.

Agreed! So what is your point?????

perhaps if you read the posts , you will get back on topic.
Labels have a purpose. For example, if I put "
&2#?€" on 12 things, I could then tell someone to collect everything with a "&2#?€" on it. However "&2#?€" is meaningless because it does not tell me anything about the object.
Yes, symbols are not intrinsically purposeful, we create their purpose.
I gave other proofs that words are meaningless ( correspondence theory of truth is inadequate, quines indeterminacy of translation,Wittgenstein *). However, lets just look at the symbol grounding problem. What is a tooth pick? Wood. What is wood? Cellulose fibers...ad infinitum. If the definitions terminate then the last definition is meaningless, which means that the penultimate definition is meaningless.... Which means that "tooth pick" is meaningless. If the chain of definitions is infinite, "tooth pick" is meaningless. If I explain that the earth is stable because it rests on an elephant and that elephant on an elephant.... I have not explained why they are elephants and not lets say turtles.
* Another proof is to replace "forms" with "concepts" in Plato's third man argument.
Well OK, you want precision."&2#?€" tells you that you should pick that object up (purpose). However, it does not tell you anything about what the object is.
Spirituality is about meaning. Religion is about purpose.
I am currently exploring alternative ways of knowing. In particular mysticism. Mysticism is the direct perception of reality without the intermediary of words,symbols, icons. Most people get mysticism confused with the occult. Mysticism is not about propositions (such as, chant this and this will happen or even the proposition, there is a God. God is ineffable )
Briefly put, everything is ineffable!!! Everything is a miracle! There is a great song, "Holy Now". I will post a link when I get off my tablet.
Yes, all those proofs were in words. As Wittgenstein said his purpose will be achieved when one realizes that everything he said was meaningless. His words are a ladder that once one climbs it is thrown away.
The muses said that Socrates was the wisest man. Socrates tried to define words. (What is X). However, he never arrived at a definition. Examples are not definitions. He then was the most wise because he was the only one that knew that he knew nothing.
Here is that “Holy Now “song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiypaURysz4
“Supposing I teach someone the use of the word "yellow" by repeatedly pointing to a yellow patch and pronouncing the word. On another occasion I make him apply what he has learnt by giving him the order, "choose a yellow ball out of this bag". What was it that happened when he obeyed my order? I say "possibly just this: he heard my words and took a yellow ball from the bag". Now you may be inclined to think that this couldn't possibly have been all; and the kind of the thing that you would suggest is that he imagined something yellow when he understood the order, and then chose a ball according to his image. To see that this is not necessary remember that I could have given him the order, "Imagine a yellow patch". Would you still be inclined to assume that he first imagines a yellow patch, just understanding my order, and then imagines a yellow patch to match the first?”
Wittgenstein
FROM
http://www.geocities.jp/mickindex/wittg ... ue_en.html
Think of the yellow patch as the concept. You will see that it is unnecessary to identify the yellow patch.
……………………….
“Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.”
Wittegenstein
A hammer has a purpose, to nail boards together. Yes, we give it that purpose. As I said , the purpose is not intrinsic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic . Words are not intrinsically purposeful. They are arbitrary conventions invented by humans. There is no resemblance between the words "pick that up" and the act of picking it up."

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Yes, symbols are not intrinsically purposeful, we create their purpose.

Which negates your last post.
Maybe you would do well to try to use ONE post to answer then you would not offer contradictions.

[img]Well%20OK,%20you%20want%20precision."&2#?€"%20tells%20you%20that%20you%20should%20pick%20that%20object%20up%20(purpose).%20However,%20it%20does%20not%20tell%20you%20anything%20about%20what%20the%20object%20is.[/img]

It tells you that it is one of 12 objects to be recovered. You have not only created meaning, you have created your pupose in the use of that label

"Well OK, you want precision."&2#?€" tells you that you should pick that object up (purpose). However, it does not tell you anything about what the object is."
ME
. In other words you( Hobbes) are saying that the definition of the object to be moved is "object to be moved". That is silly.
Um no, it does not negate anything. What you said HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.

Similarly, does the Aboriginal believe that Obvious Leo exists, or does he know he exists? Does the Dingo believe that the Kangaroo exists, or does he know it?

Wittgenstein knew of the Black Snake and Everywhen when he sang me songlines that made water fire.

Hobbes ,
Your “argument” is silly semantics and has no relevance.
Yes, without humans hammers would not be used by humans to nail things. There is not a “hammering” essence inside the hammer.
SO WHAT?!!!

You are like someone that hears a philosopher say that words are meaningful and that means that they refer to something. You then say, “ NO! Words are not meaningful, they do not refer to anything until we create them.”
UMM yes, everyone knows that. Like I said silly semantics that misses the point entirely.

Hobbes,
You say that words do not have a purpose because we give them their purpose. Well, the same “logic” works for meaning. Words are meaningless because we give them their meaning. It is totally arbitrary what sound is associated with an object. There is nothing that says that a four legged mammal that barks must be called a “dog”.
What I am saying is that the word “dog” is meaningless. The sound “dog” conveys no information about what a dog is. However, the sound “dog!” does convey a purpose, beware!
..................
…words are connected with the primitive, the natural, expressions of the sensation and used in their place. A child has hurt himself and he cries; and then adults talk to him and teach him exclamations and, later, sentences. They teach the child new pain -- behavior.
"So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?" -- On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.”
Wittgenstein [ 244]
FROM
http://topologicalmedialab.net/xinwei/c ... 9-309.html

…………………
It is common sense to know that the ink pattern on paper (the signifier) does not point at a meaning. However, it is accepted practice to say,
http://changingminds.org/explanations/c ... nified.htm
I do not disagree with your contention that we create a word’s purpose. It’s just that that point is trivial and superfluous.

Bye.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Similarly, does the Aboriginal believe that Obvious Leo exists, or does he know he exists? Does the Dingo believe that the Kangaroo exists, or does he know it?

Belief is not a valid construct in traditional aboriginal mythology.

A hammer does not have a purpose. I can bash my nails in with a rock if I prefer but that doesn't mean that the purpose of rocks is to nail boards together.

Agreed! We create purposes for objects. But that has nothing to do with the topic.