Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well the way I see it is simple. A dictionary is a reference book containing all the words of a given language and their particulars including: proper spelling, pronunciation, number of syllables, accent placement, origin, various forms and finally their meaning. The reason they were created was to standardize a language so that people that are to use it could carry on meaningful conversation.

It doesn't matter if the definitions of words are conveyed in a written or verbal form as they still mean the same thing. The advantage of written over verbal is accuracy and consistency.

Anyone that uses writing or speech suggesting that a dictionary is circular and thus the meanings of the words are somehow flawed undermines the very words they use in composing their argument. You can't have it both ways!

Of course language isn't perfect, but it's all we have if we want to speak.

keithprosser2 wrote:I don't think that we can escape the idea that brains come 'pre-wired' with some innate powers, and quite possibly even some innate ideas. An obvious one might be 'pain'. We don't need a dictionary to tell us or to learn what pain is - all we have to learn is 'the right word for it'.
Did you know that there are people that are born with some sort of wiring (nerve) problem such that as children they have to wear special protective gear or they can kill them selves. These people feel no pain what-so-ever. Pain is simply (here comes the definition that has to be taught) the result of thin peripheral sensory fibers carrying information regarding the state of the body to the spinal cord and thus to the brain, unless you're one of those people born without the sensing of pain. So, initially the sense data that would be eventually attributed to the meaning (definition) of the word pain came before you learned it's associated word, but the recognizing of pain was after the fact of your body initially sensing the damage, thus the sensing of pain is innate but it's knowledge and associated word is not.

We pick up on what the word 'tree' is by someone telling us 'tree'
That would be a verbal definition which may or may not be accurate. If you saw a dog and someone initially told you it was a tree and no other person ever set you straight you would always call a dog a tree, but then you could go to a dictionary to find that your original teacher of dog (tree) was incorrect.

is the right word for a certain object - our brains are already set up to generalise from a particular to a general, so we don't need to see every tree to understand that the word 'tree' applies to a class, not a particular. I don't have much experience of teaching language to the very young but it would be interesting to know if one has to indicate a word is a 'particular' or 'general'. Would a baby naturally associate a term like mother to a particular woman or to all women?

You and I learned the meaning of the word tree from different particulars, but we probably have a very similar notion of the general meaning of tree. But what does 'tree' mean? When I hear that word what springs into my mind is not a dictionary like definition. It's not even really a picture. It is vaguer than an actual image, but what ever it is, it is not a dictionary like definition of a tree. Of course if I were to describe what the word 'tree' conjures up in my mind, I would be forced to construct a dictionary like definition to tell you what I 'see', but that is quite a different matter from my idea of 'tree' resembling a dictionary definition.

How do people know that elms, oaks and poplars are all trees? If I see a tree of a new sort, I would have no trouble identifying as a tree, even if I wouldn't know which species it was. If Plato was nearly right and there is a Platonic form of 'tree', then that Platonic Form exists as a 'template' in our brains. Each of us carries such a template - there is no one platonic realm of external to reality where Ideal Forms reside. Or there are 7 billion such realms, one inside each human brain.

Our brains have the innate ability to construct 'Forms' from particulars, and to construct forms by combining forms. We (and dictionaries) say "X is like Y, except X is round, not square like Y" and our brains do the rest. Quite how brains do that is, I suggest, an empirical question rather than a philosophical one.
The meanings of words are taught from a dictionary, and not innate. We were not talking about the abilities of the mind to extrapolate data and associate verbalization, from previously sensed data that had associated verbal data already assigned. We were talking about the fact that someones perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, and that it's merely a method of teaching similar words that are commonly called synonyms.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well the way I see it is simple. A dictionary is a reference book containing all the words of a given language and their particulars including: proper spelling, pronunciation, number of syllables, accent placement, origin, various forms and finally their meaning. The reason they were created was to standardize a language so that people that are to use it could carry on meaningful conversation.

It doesn't matter if the definitions of words are conveyed in a written or verbal form as they still mean the same thing. The advantage of written over verbal is accuracy and consistency.

Anyone that uses writing or speech suggesting that a dictionary is circular and thus the meanings of the words are somehow flawed undermines the very words they use in composing their argument. You can't have it both ways!

Of course language isn't perfect, but it's all we have if we want to speak.

Yes. Dictionaries and other established reference lexicons are good for determining the Object, and relations between Objects.
Lance, every 'thing' is an object!

Can such lexicons point, of themselves and our use of them, to an Absolute Truth?
As inanimate objects, obviously, dictionaries don't point. I guess it's true that the people that create the dictionary can point with their words, but it doesn't necessarily point to absolute truth.

It still seems as though you don't understand my absolute truth. For me all it means is that each object has contained within itself, it's absolute truth. Which is to say that just because a particular human says something about a particular object doesn't necessarily mean that it's based in the absolute truth of that object.

For instance in quantum mechanics there is an experiment whereby electrons are fired through a plate with two vertical slits to a sensor. The patterns of sensed hits are multiple vertical bars exceeding two such that their hypothesis is that the particles, after passing through the two slits form combined wave patterns having multiple peaks that coincide with the positions of the sensed bar patterns.

The first thing I thought was, I wonder if they considered that the number of possible deflection angles of the electrons that struck the edge of the slits may coincide with the distinct vertical bar patterns, such that their findings are merely a function of the parts used in the experiment. So that my questions as to the plate would be what is it's material, how thick, what's the cross-sectional shape of it's edges, was the material permeable, could the material maintain a static charge, would it support eddy currents, it's porosity, etc. All of these questions could play a part and should be eliminated.

Of course you'd like to think that they thought of all of this and it either didn't apply or it was compensated for, but the point is that sometimes what we don't know can distort our perceptions and that simply knowing that there is an absolute truth, whether that truth is random or not, doesn't necessarily, at least immediately, help one to solve for an unknown.

Yes the truth is usually extremely elusive my friend

When the definitions and terms indicate a circularity, what does that mean?
As far as I'm concerned, the fact of perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, but is merely a method used by the dictionary writers, in teaching synonyms, thus allowing for a more thorough understanding of a particular word, via a potentially more commonly associated word. So it's merely cross reference.

The meanings of words are taught from a dictionary, and not innate. We were not talking about the abilities of the mind to extrapolate data and associate verbalization, from previously sensed data that had associated verbal data already assigned. We were talking about the fact that someones perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, and that it's merely a method of teaching similar words that are commonly called synonyms.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You did it yet again! Goodness gracious! WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition), WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)

Are you a female? If not, you sure seem like one. Not that they're all that way, hey or maybe it's a monthly thing. Come to think of it my wife acts that way sometimes as well. Yeah it's got to be hormonal.

And you sound like the dodo bird! You do realize this goes both ways, right? And it would seem that your point killed your point!

There is no talking to you, We're just incompatible.' I'll give you credit though, the words you use come off pretty well, it's just that you don't seem to understand what it is they mean, I assume it's the circles that you see in dictionaries that you believe confuse meaning. If I don't understand the 'COMPLETE' meaning, at least I'm honest about it as I won't use them.

I'll give you this though, what better way for the powers that be, to control humanity than by controlling their language, thus dictionaries. No it's nothing new, organized religion did it for centuries, but they did it by withholding knowledge. I'm not necessarily saying that they are, just making a point of possibility.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: It still seems as though you don't understand my absolute truth. For me all it means is that each object has contained within itself, it's absolute truth. Which is to say that just because a particular human says something about a particular object doesn't necessarily mean that it's based in the absolute truth of that object.

For instance in quantum mechanics there is an experiment whereby electrons are fired through a plate with two vertical slits to a sensor. The patterns of sensed hits are multiple vertical bars exceeding two such that their hypothesis is that the particles, after passing through the two slits form combined wave patterns having multiple peaks that coincide with the positions of the sensed bar patterns.

The first thing I thought was, I wonder if they considered that the number of possible deflection angles of the electrons that struck the edge of the slits may coincide with the distinct vertical bar patterns, such that their findings are merely a function of the parts used in the experiment. So that my questions as to the plate would be what is it's material, how thick, what's the cross-sectional shape of it's edges, was the material permeable, could the material maintain a static charge, would it support eddy currents, it's porosity, etc. All of these questions could play a part and should be eliminated.

When the definitions and terms indicate a circularity, what does that mean?
As far as I'm concerned, the fact of perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, but is merely a method used by the dictionary writers, in teaching synonyms, thus allowing for a more thorough understanding of a particular word, via a potentially more commonly associated word. So it's merely cross reference.

keithprosser2 wrote:

The meanings of words are taught from a dictionary, and not innate. We were not talking about the abilities of the mind to extrapolate data and associate verbalization, from previously sensed data that had associated verbal data already assigned. We were talking about the fact that someones perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, and that it's merely a method of teaching similar words that are commonly called synonyms.

67 pages to conclude that dictionaries define words by means of synonyms? It's just as well you're not talking about "the abilities of the mind to extrapolate data and associate verbalization, from previously sensed data that had associated verbal data already assigned" or we wouldn't get anywhere fast.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You did it yet again! Goodness gracious! WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition), WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)

And yet again you ignore the question of how you account for the illiterate speaking a language? How we talk before we read? As we do not, in general, learn a language via definition. You do not tell a child the definition of "window" or "door" by stating the dictionary definition, you show them one.
WRITTEN OR VERBAL, I figure sooner or later you'll get it. You have merely failed to entertain a particular scenario in your head, If you continually fail to do so, you shall continually appear to be ever increasingly silly.

Are you a female? If not, you sure seem like one. Not that they're all that way, hey or maybe it's a monthly thing. Come to think of it my wife acts that way sometimes as well. Yeah it's got to be hormonal.

Are you American? Must be, as its my experience that they appear to need gender assignments in this medium.
Yes and no, Women just have some peculiar issues dealing with comprehension and logic. They're better at nurturing and love though, you got to give them that victory.

And you sound like the dodo bird! You do realize this goes both ways, right? And it would seem that your point killed your point!

Good, as I like the dodo's point of view about doing rather than defining. Please explain how my point has killed itself?
There you go again, straying. I shall not argue the argument, that's your responsibility.

There is no talking to you, We're just incompatible.' I'll give you credit though, the words you use come off pretty well, it's just that you don't seem to understand what it is they mean, I assume it's the circles that you see in dictionaries that you believe confuse meaning. If I don't understand the 'COMPLETE' meaning, at least I'm honest about it as I won't use them.

But many words have different meanings? Are you saying you won't use a word until you understand all the meanings? I do not say that dictionaries confuse meaning, just that meanings are not founded upon dictionaries but thoughts and perceptions.
There you go again. We are in fact using language, are we not! (<-hint: for the previous)

I'll give you this though, what better way for the powers that be, to control humanity than by controlling their language, thus dictionaries. No it's nothing new, organized religion did it for centuries, but they did it by withholding knowledge. I'm not necessarily saying that they are, just making a point of possibility.

Organized religion also preserved knowledge but I take your point and think Orwell pretty much covered it with his 'Newspeak' and Stalin, Hitler, et al, demonstrated it.
Covering doesn't matter, insuring understanding does, however.

Typist wrote:Gender assignments and colored text are the one true way to see the truth.

Mark Question wrote:if we are talking truth, are we talking knowledge or not?
No!
if we are talking absolute truth, are we talking absolute knowledge?
No!
if we are talking absolute knowledge, are we talking all-knowing god?
No!
if we are talking all that exists, are we talking world or universe?
Universe!