a theory of language...
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:35 pm
In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?
for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"
What I am thinking about is what Hume said about "cause and effect"
the example he used was this, "The sun will rise tomorrow."...
but how do we in fact know that the sun will rise tomorrow?
we don't... it is an assumption, one form from habit, and use,
but having no real connection... the statement, "The sun will rise
tomorrow" and the actual sun rising tomorrow has no relationship...
two distinct and separate statements that don't connect in any way,
shape or form... we connect them from habit and usage, but in fact,
they are not connected..
and so it goes for the word "table" and an actual table... from habit
and usage, we connect the word "table" with an actual table,
but in fact, there is no connection between the word "table"
and an actual table....they are two distinct and separate words
that have no connection outside the connection we give them
from habit or superstition or custom.. as Hume himself says,
'' custom alone makes us expect for the future, a similar train of
events with those which have appeared in the past"
and what does this thought that there is no connection between words
and their objects actually mean? The entire analytical tradition of
"Linguistic analysis" is based on a flawed idea that words are identical
to the objects that they portray.. in other words, the word "table''
is the same thing as the object of the table.. that they are identical...
and they are not... the only relationship the word "table''
has to the physical object of table is found in our custom or habits
of connecting the two words..
not only isn't there a universal understanding of the word "table",
there isn't even an individual understanding of the word, table...
the word "table" has no connection to an actual table...
I could just as easily call a "table" a blork' or a uggan, or a blreag...
and it would just as easily stand for a table...
take for instance, Tisch.... as an American, the word "Tisch" means
nothing to me... I cannot make any type of connection from the
word "Tisch" to any other word... or perhaps the word "mesa"...
how do I connect the word "mesa" with any other word? or perhaps
the word "stol." or perhaps "stul"... it is from
habit and custom that I might be able to connect each of these
words with their being identical with their physical objects...
which in this case is the English word, "table".. Tisch is the
German word, table... but I cannot know that before the fact..
in other words, we learn words from experience.. not from
theory...
so what concrete physical object can I connect the word "love" to?
so many of our words have no concrete, physical existence.....
so how do I connect these words to each other if they
no physical presence? simply by habit, superstition, custom...
and that is the only connection that the word "table"
and the object table has...from habit, custom, superstition that
we connect the two ideas...
Kropotkin
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?
for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"
What I am thinking about is what Hume said about "cause and effect"
the example he used was this, "The sun will rise tomorrow."...
but how do we in fact know that the sun will rise tomorrow?
we don't... it is an assumption, one form from habit, and use,
but having no real connection... the statement, "The sun will rise
tomorrow" and the actual sun rising tomorrow has no relationship...
two distinct and separate statements that don't connect in any way,
shape or form... we connect them from habit and usage, but in fact,
they are not connected..
and so it goes for the word "table" and an actual table... from habit
and usage, we connect the word "table" with an actual table,
but in fact, there is no connection between the word "table"
and an actual table....they are two distinct and separate words
that have no connection outside the connection we give them
from habit or superstition or custom.. as Hume himself says,
'' custom alone makes us expect for the future, a similar train of
events with those which have appeared in the past"
and what does this thought that there is no connection between words
and their objects actually mean? The entire analytical tradition of
"Linguistic analysis" is based on a flawed idea that words are identical
to the objects that they portray.. in other words, the word "table''
is the same thing as the object of the table.. that they are identical...
and they are not... the only relationship the word "table''
has to the physical object of table is found in our custom or habits
of connecting the two words..
not only isn't there a universal understanding of the word "table",
there isn't even an individual understanding of the word, table...
the word "table" has no connection to an actual table...
I could just as easily call a "table" a blork' or a uggan, or a blreag...
and it would just as easily stand for a table...
take for instance, Tisch.... as an American, the word "Tisch" means
nothing to me... I cannot make any type of connection from the
word "Tisch" to any other word... or perhaps the word "mesa"...
how do I connect the word "mesa" with any other word? or perhaps
the word "stol." or perhaps "stul"... it is from
habit and custom that I might be able to connect each of these
words with their being identical with their physical objects...
which in this case is the English word, "table".. Tisch is the
German word, table... but I cannot know that before the fact..
in other words, we learn words from experience.. not from
theory...
so what concrete physical object can I connect the word "love" to?
so many of our words have no concrete, physical existence.....
so how do I connect these words to each other if they
no physical presence? simply by habit, superstition, custom...
and that is the only connection that the word "table"
and the object table has...from habit, custom, superstition that
we connect the two ideas...
Kropotkin
