Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

numbers vs. words

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@Ahab,

Ahab;147503 wrote:

I'm not sure I agree that failing to say what one intends is always breaking a rule of language use.

The "duplicity" to which I am referring is not in the intent to deceive.
The "duplicity" to which I am referring is not in the intending something but that intention merely being a mishap (as if one threw a dart at the dart board and then missed the bullseye), or as if some kind of failure of reference occured just because I meant to say "john" as opposed to "bill," when I said "bill went to the market." That's easy to account for. That's just a mistake, but one really didn't mean it.

The duplicity is in the intending (wanting) to say something truth-valuable, asserting something as if it were truth-valuable, and thinking that what one asserted is truth-valuable, and then what one is saying not actually being truth-valuable because one doesn't even know what one is referring to by the use of the term "the tiger," but using it as if one did know what it referred to. --that's the rule violation...since every speaker of every language takes it as given his subject terms refer to actual things. But if he uses a subject for which he knows doesn't refer to anything, but then using it as if he did know it referred to something by his use of it in a sentence in order to say something truth-valuable--I think that's the rule violation I am talking about. We don't just get to do anything you want with our words, is the point. They have rules of use, and this case, the rule of using a subject term is that you intend to refer to something by using it. If you are intending but also knowing that it doesn't refer--that's rule violation.

Ahab;147503 wrote:

The "failing to say" doesn't come in that
Another analogy: if I intend to checkmate the King by moving the Bishop to a particular square on the board and fail to do so because I overlooked a counter move that was available to my opponent, I haven't broken any rules. The move I made with the Bishop was legal. I just failed to accomplish what I had intended.

Yeah, that's just a simple mistake anyone can make. But you can probably see now I am not talking this kind of "failed intention." There is also the failed intention of somebody intending to move a bishop as if it moved like a rook.--but that's not actually a rule violation, per se, because the person didn't mean to violate a rule. I think that's right. In a game of chess there might be different layers of mistakes, like spilling one's coffe on the chess board, all the way up to cheating itself...lol

spilling one's coffee....:rolleyes: Do you know how many of my books have coffee stains on them?? sheesh....I'm afraid to bring them out in public because it makes me look like a slob, but I'm not a slob....lol

Ahab;147503 wrote:

Edited comment: My analogy could be made more apt. Suppose you move the Bishop one square short of the one you intended to move it to. This results in a failure to even check the King let alone checkmate it. But the move you made is still legal.

Yeah, those are all legal moves, they are just failures to make the wisest decision with respect to one's purpose--or forgetting what one really wanted to do. Those are all "honest" mistakes. I am talking about someone actually "cheating," I think. That would be more appropriate to what I am driving at. And I don't mean that lightly, either.

I'll get back to the kung fu tiger thing....Maybe I'll mention the sasquatch move next.... Smile

@fast,

fast;147515 wrote:

It did dawn on me that (maybe) you were uttering a sentence that did not express a proposition, but I still don't believe any of this counters the point I was trying to make.

The term, "the tiger" is a referring term (just as the term "tiger" is a referring term), and that is true even if there is no tiger for the term "the tiger" to refer to. See, when I say that a term is a referring term, that does not imply what it may appear to imply, and there's a reason for that. For example, "my pet elephant" is a referring term, and it's a referring term even though I have no pet elephant.

By saying that a term is a referring term, I am denying that the term is a non-referring term. What needs to be distinguished is the difference between a non-referring term and a referring term that fails to refer (as opposed to a referring term that succeeds in referring).

1) non-referring terms (e.g. "not", "although", "however")
2) referring terms that successfully refer (e.g. "my cat" "tiger")
3) referring terms that fail to refer (e.g. "my elephant" "unicorn")

If "the tiger" as used by you has no referent, then that does not render it a non-referring term. It remains a referring term but just not one that successfully refers. Notice that I included "tiger" in group two above, and that is because the term, "tiger" does refer, and what it refers to is the tiger class.

If I have a pet elephant and I say "My elephant is sleeping" I am successfully referring to the elephant I have. We can only tell from context whether or not 'my elephant does succeed in referring.

Same with "unicorn". Context will tell whether or not you are using that term to refer to a mythical creature, the heraldic representation of the mythical creature, or a Scottish gold coin.

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;147523]If I have a pet elephant and I say "My elephant is sleeping" I am successfully referring to the elephant I have. [/QUOTE]Notice what I have bolded above. YOU are referring. YOU can do anything you like. YOU can refer to your giraffe as an elephant if YOU like, but this isn't about YOU. This has nothing to do with what YOU are doing, so it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Yes, YOU can use words to refer, but this isn't about what YOU are doing with words. This has to do with what TERMS are doing (as if they can do anything!-but that's another topic). The question before us is not whether YOU can use a term to refer; instead, the question before us is whether or not TERMS are referring to what I say they are. REFERENCE IS INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL USE. It may have something to do with collective use, but that's a different matter.

Yes, we can use referring terms while we refer to things, but the important distinction to be understood is that terms themselves can legitimately be said to refer. They are called referring terms. Not all of them are successful, however.

[QUOTE]We can only tell from context whether or not 'my elephant does succeed in referring.[/QUOTE]But, we don't need context for it to be true that it's a referring term. You are bringing knowledge into this. A referring term is a referring term even when we don't know if it successfully refers or not. I know that the term, "the quarter in my air vent" is a referring term. What I don't know is if it successfully refers.

[QUOTE]Same with "unicorn". Context will tell whether or not you are using that term to refer to a mythical creature, the heraldic representation of the mythical creature, or a Scottish gold coin.[/QUOTE]The term "unicorn" is a referring term, but it's a referring term that fails to refer, and that is because there are no unicorns.

If I wanted to refer to something like a statue of a unicorn, then I would use the term, "statue of a unicorn," for the term "statue of a unicorn" refers to what I want to refer to.

But notice something. The term refers to what I say it does, but why? It's not because of how I'm using the term. My individual use has nothing to do with it. What's important is how it's collectively used.

I'm not conflating meaning with reference when I say that. I'm applying what I know of meaning to that of reference. Words don't mean what they mean because I say they mean what I say. They mean what they mean independent of my personal use. Same with reference. Terms refer to what they do, but not because of how I choose to use them.

@fast,

fast;147541 wrote:

Notice what I have bolded above. YOU are referring. YOU can do anything you like. YOU can refer to your giraffe as an elephant if YOU like, but this isn't about YOU. This has nothing to do with what YOU are doing, so it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Yes, YOU can use words to refer, but this isn't about what YOU are doing with words. This has to do with what TERMS are doing (as if they can do anything!-but that's another topic). The question before us is not whether YOU can use a term to refer; instead, the question before us is whether or not TERMS are referring to what I say they are. REFERENCE IS INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL USE. It may have something to do with collective use, but that's a different matter.

How can the reference be independent of indivdual use with 'my elephant'?

Quote:

Yes, we can use referring terms while we refer to things, but the important distinction to be understood is that terms themselves can legitimately be said to refer. They are called referring terms. Not all of them are successful, however.

But, we don't need context for it to be true that it's a referring term. You are bringing knowledge into this. A referring term is a referring term even when we don't know if it successfully refers or not. I know that the term, "the quarter under in my air vent" is a referring term. What I don't know is if it successfully refers.

The term "unicorn" is a referring term, but it's a referring term that fails to refer, and that is because there are no unicorns.

If I wanted to refer to something like a statue of a unicorn, then I would use the term, "statue of a unicorn," for the term "statue of a unicorn" refers to what I want to refer to.

But notice something. The term refers to what I say it does, but why? It's not because of how I'm using the term. My individual use has nothing to do with it. What's important is how it's collectively used.

I'm not conflating meaning with reference when I say that. I'm applying what I know of meaning to that of reference. Words don't mean what they mean because I say they mean what I say. They mean what they mean independent of my personal use. Same with reference. Terms refer to what they do, but not because of how I choose to use them.

Here is the dictionary.com definition of 'unicorn'

1. a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.
2. a heraldic representation of this animal, in the form of a horse with a lion's tail and with a long, straight, and spirally twisted horn.
3. (initial capital letter) Astronomy. the constellation Monoceros.
4. an animal mentioned in the Bible, Deut. 33:17: now believed by some to be a description of a wild ox or rhinoceros.
5. a former gold coin of Scotland, first issued by James III in 1486, having an obverse bearing the figure of a unicorn.

Until you use the word 'unicorn' in a context I can't tell what you are attempting to refer to. The word 'unicorn' doesn't just magically attempt to refer and then fail to do so all on its own. In some situations it does succeed in referring.

Of course, you and I don't share the same conception of reference so we might differ as to when this word does fail to refer. But we first have to know the context in which the sentence containing that word is used in order to make the determination of reference.

Edited comment:
I am not disagreeing with you that we can classify terms as being referring terims. What I am objecting to is your claim that we can actually determine a failure of reference without knowing how the word is used and the context in which it is used.

@Ahab,

Ahab;147503 wrote:

In your scenario if I were the Kung Fu master I would have assumed that the student was talking about the moves called 'the moves of the tiger'. And that he desired to learn those moves because he thought they were fierce.

Sure, that would make sense. But I don't think that has much to do with the example I gave. Certainly, you can hear the prodigious and eager-to-learn student saying "because the tiger is fierce, master," right? If you can, that's all we need (or maybe I've been exposed to too many kung movies as a kid).

I think I accidentally misled you away from the point of the example....take the example just like I spin it here:

I can certainly hear someone asking the student, "What do you think of the tiger"? And the student replies, "The tiger is fierce." It's not clear in this sense, whether the student is referring to the "moves" of the tiger or whether the person who asked that question referred to the moves of the tiger either. So maybe they mean (intend) exactly what we take them at face value to mean (intend)....

Note On Methodology:

I am pretty sure that with respect to how these thought experiments are supposed to work, we are not supposed to be asking what is most likely the student would mean by such and such. All it takes is that you and I can imagine him saying such and such, right? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? These are thought experiments which are designed to help us derive various semantic conclusions about our language use, not to derive any conclusions about what someone would most likely mean IF he or she were in that scenario. That's how you draw out refined meanings--I would think you would want to go that direction anyway, wouldn't you?

That sounds exactly right to me--does it sound right to you?

[QUOTE=Ahab;147503] But if, as in your scenario I thought the student was attempting to say something about real tigers I would think that what he meant by the assertion "the tiger is fierce' is that tigers are fierce animals. But to say that tigers are fierce animals is to not commit one to the belief that tigers are always fierce. Don't we say that humans are rational beings? Certainly humans don't always act rationally.[/QUOTE]

Ibid, above. Again, can't you hear someone saying "The human is rational"? I sure can imagine somebody saying this. Approaching the question this way is how we draw refined meanings out. Again, semantics about language uses--not about what is most likely a person would mean if.

The first is about the semantic properties of language use, the latter is about people--they are entirely different topics.

[QUOTE=Ahab;147503]Of course if there is uncertainty as to what a person is trying to say we can usually simply ask them to clarify what they meant. [/QUOTE]

Of course. But this is the uncertainty concerning people, not about language usage. Right?

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;147547]Edited comment:
I am not disagreeing with you that we can classify terms as being referring terims. What I am objecting to is your claim that we can actually determine a failure of reference without knowing how the word is used and the context in which it is used.[/QUOTE]
If we're dealing with a word that is not ambiguous, then we should be able to tell whether or not the word is a non-referring term or a referring term.

If we're dealing with a word that is not ambiguous, and if we're dealing with a referring term, then we may not be able to tell whether or not the word successfully refers or fails to refer. Yet, in most cases, we already know.

If we're dealing with a word that is ambiguous, then we can treat each entry as if it is a unique term and determine whether or not the entry is a non-referring term or a referring term.

@fast,

fast;147557 wrote:

If we're dealing with a word that is not ambiguous, then we should be able to tell whether or not the word is a non-referring term or a referring term.

If we're dealing with a word that is not ambiguous, and if we're dealing with a referring term, then we may not be able to tell whether or not the word successfully refers or fails to refer. Yet, in most cases, we already know.

If we're dealing with a word that is ambiguous, then we can treat each entry as if it is a unique term and determine whether or not the entry is a non-referring term or a referring term.

So you would agree that we determine this through the actual use of a word within a context?

The bare word "unicorn" that I simply write down or utter neither succeeds or fails to refer?

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 11:24 AM ----------

[QUOTE=Extrain;147521
The duplicity is in the intending (wanting) to say something truth-valuable, asserting something as if it were truth-valuable, and thinking that what one asserted is truth-valuable, and then what one is saying not actually being truth-valuable because one doesn't even know what one is referring to by the use of the term "the tiger," but using it as if one did know what it referred to. --that's the rule violation...since every speaker of every language takes it as given his subject terms refer to actual things. But if he uses a subject for which he knows doesn't refer to anything, but then using it as if he did know it referred to something by his use of it in a sentence in order to say something truth-valuable--I think that's the rule violation I am talking about. We don't just get to do anything you want with our words, is the point. They have rules of use, and this case, the rule of using a subject term is that you intend to refer to something by using it. If you are intending but also knowing that it doesn't refer--that's rule violation.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, could you clarify this for me?
Does the speaker not know that 'the tiger' should be used to refer to something
Or
Does the speaker not know what 'the tiger' refers to
Or
Is there a third possibility I'm missing here?

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;147558]The bare word "unicorn" that I simply write down or utter neither succeeds or fails to refer?[/QUOTE]
Ordinarily, I would say that it's a referring term that fails to refer, but now I'm second guessing myself. I know that the term, "my unicorn" is a referring term, and I know that it fails to refer since I do not have any unicorns, and remember, if a unicorn did exist, then it would be a concrete object--an actual equine with an actual horn. Since I don't have an actual equine with an actual horn, the term, "my unicorn" is a referring term that fails to refer.

But now, I'm thinking that "unicorn" refers to the class of all unicorns. Does the fact there are no unicorns imply that there is no class of unicorns? No, I don't think so, as there is the dinosaur class and there are no dinosaurs. It would imply (I think) that there is no set of unicorns though.

The problem is that I don't know if it's okay to say that the unicorn class exists. This means that I have to figure out if the class of all unicorns has a property. I'm thinking no, but how do I contend with the notion that the term, "unicorn" is referring to the class of all unicorns if there is no unicorn class, as shown by there being no properties of the unicorn class--unless there are and I don't know it.

This is nuts. I'm going to say that it's a referring term that fails to refer unless someone can show that the class of all unicorns have properties--not fictional characteristics attributed as having properties, of course.

@Extrain,

Extrain;147551 wrote:

Note On Methodology:

I am pretty sure that with respect to how these thought experiments are supposed to work, we are not supposed to be asking what is most likely the student would mean by such and such. All it takes is that you and I can imagine him saying such and such, right? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? These are thought experiments which are designed to help us derive various semantic conclusions about our language use, not to derive any conclusions about what someone would most likely mean IF he or she were in that scenario. That's how you draw out refined meanings--I would think you would want to go that direction anyway, wouldn't you?

That sounds exactly right to me--does it sound right to you?

It depends. Smile

Are you simply trying to determine the meaning of the sentence?
Or what is said by the use of the sentence?

If the latter, don't you also have to take into consideration the context in which the sentence is spoken?

And if the former, why bother placing the sentence within an imagined context?

@fast,

fast;147541 wrote:

Notice what I have bolded above. YOU are referring. YOU can do anything you like. YOU can refer to your giraffe as an elephant if YOU like, but this isn't about YOU. This has nothing to do with what YOU are doing, so it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Yes, it IS about what he is doing, because words don't magically refer by themselves. This is the mistake Bertrand Russell made for which P.F. Strawson criticized him for doing. How could an lingustic object refer anyway; it has no reprsentational powers all by itself independently of the referrer using the term. You just assume that they do so refer without a person, and then criticizing Ahab for "missing" this point. But you have it exactly backwards. Words don't magically refer by themselves, and I've explictly shown you why too.

[QUOTE=fast;147541]Yes, YOU can use words to refer, but this isn't about what YOU are doing with words. This has to do with what TERMS are doing (as if they can do anything!-but that's another topic). The question before us is not whether YOU can use a term to refer; instead, the question before us is whether or not TERMS are referring to what I say they are. REFERENCE IS INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL USE. It may have something to do with collective use, but that's a different matter.[/QUOTE]

No. You have it exactly backwards, and I've explained this to you several times why. Words refer, yes. But words don't magically refer. You need a context. You are just assuming that the word "I" and "you" as names will always refer to one and only one individual. But they don't. That's why they are contextual pronouns, just like "John," "Albert Einstein," and "Grover Cleveland" are all contextual. But as soon as that context is provided, the terms refer to one and only one individual, and they are rigid designators which refer to the same individual at all times, in all cases, past present, and future once that context is introduced. But you need a context, first, before a name can have reference. Reference is ultimately tied to our usages of the term given by a context. I still don't know why you fail to understand this.

If the word "John" referred to John independent of my intentions, then it would refer to all Johns at once. But it can't refer to all Johns at once. If I said "John is in my backward" then I would be saying "All johns are in my backyard." But that's false. Therefore, the word "John" doesn't refer independently of how you would decide what that term refers to. So "John" having reference is entirely dependent on your own use of it.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] Yes, we can use referring terms while we refer to things, but the important distinction to be understood is that terms themselves can legitimately be said to refer. They are called referring terms. Not all of them are successful, however. [/QUOTE]

No. You don't understand how reference works. If the term is a referring term, then it necessarily refers successfuly to something. It is simply logically impossible for a term to be a referring term if it fails to refer. This is precisely the source of your error.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] But, we don't need context for it to be true that it's a referring term.[/QUOTE]

That's correct. It's even trivially true. We don't "need" context for a term to be a referring a term, since it is either a referring term or not a referring term within given context. So this is actually a tautology.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] You are bringing knowledge into this. A referring term is a referring term even when we don't know if it successfully refers or not.[/QUOTE]

This is false.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] I know that the term, "the quarter in my air vent" is a referring term. What I don't know is if it successfully refers.[/QUOTE]

No. If "the quarter in my air vent" is a referring term, and you know that it is, necessarily you know that it is successfully referring to something, even though you may not know what that it--otherwise, it is not a referring term. Likewise, if my pointing is a pointing action, then I am necessarily pointing to some location in space. It's impossible for my pointing to be pointing and not pointing at once.

[QUOTE] The term "unicorn" is a referring term, but it's a referring term that fails to refer, and that is because there are no unicorns. [/QUOTE]

If the term fails to refer, then it is not a referring term. Period. This is necessarily true.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] If I wanted to refer to something like a statue of a unicorn, then I would use the term, "statue of a unicorn," for the term "statue of a unicorn" refers to what I want to refer to.[/QUOTE]

But this contradicts what you say about other referring terms being able to refer without someone using them to refer. Now you say it is YOU who are the necessary condtion for the term to refer to something without which it wouldn't refer. So your view is a contradiction.

[QUOTE=fast;147541] But notice something. The term refers to what I say it does, but why? It's not because of how I'm using the term. My individual use has nothing to do with it. What's important is how it's collectively used.[/QUOTE]

Again, now you're back to your old view, which contradicts what you said above about the term "statue of a unicorn," which can refer to whatever you want it to refer. But I thought your view is that referring terms refer without somebody using them to refer. Another contradiction.

[QUOTE=fast;147541]I'm not conflating meaning with reference when I say that. I'm applying what I know of meaning to that of reference. Words don't mean what they mean because I say they mean what I say. They mean what they mean independent of my personal use. Same with reference. Terms refer to what they do, but not because of how I choose to use them.[/quote]

Words have meaning in and of themselves, yes. But they don't have reference in and of themselves. This is the mistake.

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 12:56 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Ahab;147558] Sorry, could you clarify this for me?
Does the speaker not know that 'the tiger' should be used to refer to something
Or
Does the speaker not know what 'the tiger' refers to
Or
Is there a third possibility I'm missing here?[/QUOTE]

No he does know that "the tiger" should be used to refer to something, it just doesn't refer, but he is using it as if it did refer--which makes his intentions inconsistent with his own implicit knowledge that it should be referring.

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 01:47 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Ahab;147564] It depends. Smile

Are you simply trying to determine the meaning of the sentence?
Or what is said by the use of the sentence?[/QUOTE]

Both.

I think you are asking very good questions. I've NEVER actually performed this kind investigative discovery to this extent before with a participator such as yourself, but I am certain this is exactly how to undertake the investigation from my repeated experience of hearing, learning, and reading how philosopher's of language and linguists do it.

So your questions are keeping me in check, which is pretty cool, and helps steer the discussion in the right direction. So I am continuing to learn all this as I go, by your own guidance. So I am not exactly the teacher. Smile

[QUOTE=Ahab;147564]If the latter, don't you also have to take into consideration the context in which the sentence is spoken?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And that's exactly the purposes of the example: to provide that context.

[QUOTE=Ahab;147564] And if the former, why bother placing the sentence within an imagined context?[/QUOTE]

Precisely for the reason that you went astray (because of my failure to be clear about context) in presenting different possible contexts which would yield different possible results.

We tailor the examples to provide that context so that the results that we get concerning meaning are pure and correct, and above all, untainted by confusions introduced from other contexts. Without that context we wouldn't even get any results about meaning, but then just start arguing over different contexts.

That's how that works. I hope that is satisfactory. If not, we might have to talk about what linguistic context even is.

@Extrain,

Extrain;147565 wrote:

No he does know that "the tiger" should be used to refer to something, it just doesn't refer, but he is using it as if it did refer--which makes his intentions inconsistent with his own implicit knowledge that it should be referring.

Thanks much for clarifying this.

If a person knows that the Bishop moves diagonally and he moves it that way, isn't he still playing according to the rules?

If a person knows that 'the tiger' should be used to refer and he uses it as if it does refer isn't he still playing according the rules of language.?

Of course, in chess one can't move a piece as if it is moving. That makes no sense.
Language is much more complex. We can use language to lie or confuse others.

I'm getting the sense that you and I may differ on the role of intentions in the use of language. I don't think that intentions are part of the rules of language use, do you?

Was the speaker merely uttering the sentence in order to practice saying it? In that situation it makes perfectly good sense that another could misunderstand and think the speaker was making a reference when he had no intention to.

@Extrain,

[QUOTE=Extrain;147565]How could an lingustic object refer anyway[/QUOTE]Much the same way that it's true that a word can denote meaning. I'm not personifying the word when I say that words denote, and I'm not personifying terms when I say that they can refer.

When you truthfully say, "John [the butler] is in the back yard," then who is in the back yard is John. "John" refers to John--you know, the man in the backyard [the butler].

Now, let's say I'm not privy to the context in which you used the name, "John". I come over, and I'm told that you said to another, "John is in the back yard." Since there are two people named John in the back yard, I don't know if you used "John" to refer to the butler or the other fellow named John, but then again, I don't need to know how you used the term.

"John" refers to John, and I'll let you know which one when I know which one. How do I know that it's a referring term? Because it's possible. It's not possible for the word, "although" to be a referring term, because nothing can instantiate it.

[QUOTE]No. You don't understand how reference works. If the term is a referring term, then it necessarily refers successfuly to something. It is simply logically impossible for a term to be a referring term if it fails to refer. This is precisely the source of your error. [/QUOTE]I don't think so.

Terms are either non-referring terms or referring terms, and referring terms either successfully refer or fail to refer. You are confusing non-referring terms with referring terms that fail to refer. That's a common confusion.

[QUOTE]No. If "the quarter in my air vent" is a referring term, and you know that it is, necessarily you know that it is successfully referring to something, even though you may not know what that it--otherwise, it is not a referring term. [/QUOTE] I don't know if there is a quarter in my air vent or not, but there can be, and because of that, the term is a referring term.

What I don't know is if it's a referring term that successfully refers or a referring term that fails to refer, but it is one or the other. I may not know whether there is a quarter in my air vent, but if there is one, and whether I know it or not, it's a referring term that succeeds to refer. If there is not a quarter in my air vent, and whether I know it or not, then it's a still a referring term (but in this case a referring term that fails to refer), for it's not impossible for there to be a quarter in the air vent; hence, it's possible for something to instantiate it.

The underlying source of the confusion has to do with possibility versus actuality. If a term is a non-referring term, then it's not possible that there could be something to instantiate a corresponding referent, and if it is possible to instantiate a referent, then that it's possible doesn't tell us the complete story. Just because something is possibly the case doesn't mean that something is actually the case. What is then important is if it's actually the case, and whether something is actually the case has nothing to do with my knowledge of what the case is.

1) Non-referring term: not possible thus not actual
2) Referring term (that successfully refers): is possible AND is actually the case
3) Referring term (that fails to refer): is possible AND is not actually the case

@Extrain,

Extrain;147565 wrote:

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 01:47 PM ----------

Both.

I think you are asking very good questions. I've NEVER actually performed this kind investigative discovery to this extent before with a participator such as yourself, but I am certain this is exactly how to undertake the investigation from my repeated experience of hearing, learning, and reading how philosopher's of language and linguists do it.

So your questions are keeping me in check, which is pretty cool, and helps steer the discussion in the right direction. So I am continuing to learn all this as I go, by your own guidance. So I am not exactly the teacher.

Absolutely. And that's exactly the purposes of the example: to provide that context.

Precisely for the reason that you went astray (because of my failure to be clear about context) in presenting different possible contexts which would yield different possible results.

We tailor the examples to provide that context so that the results that we get concerning meaning are pure and correct, and above all, untainted by confusions introduced from other contexts. Without that context we wouldn't even get any results about meaning, but then just start arguing over different contexts.

That's how that works. I hope that is satisfactory. If not, we might have to talk about what linguistic context even is.

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for explaining. I'll try not to jump in and insert a different sentence into the scenario. Or create another scenario in which the sentence under discussion could be used.

@fast,

fast;147599 wrote:

Much the same way that it's true that a word can denote meaning. I'm not personifying the word when I say that words denote, and I'm not personifying terms when I say that they can refer.

That's not correct at all. True, you're right, I had made a verbal blunder because I did say that words refer, after all. But what I deny is just that any such word refers at all. Names of things directly refer to things themselves, other words don't. But context is needed to know which name we are talking about, "John1" or "John2" for instance that is doing the *picking-out* of the individual in an environment (such as two Johns at a party).

Further, you are actually confusing meaning with reference here. True, words can "denote" meaning, but they don't actually "refer to" meaning. Reference and denotation are not the same thing. There is a huge difference between merely *indicating* some kind of linguistic meaning by a word, and the word (or name) itself *directly referring* to a thing by your use of the word (name) itself. Only names have the capacity of referring, other words don't. They are merely disguised descriptions whose meanings we *indicate* by a word.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] When you truthfully say, "John [the butler] is in the back yard," then who is in the back yard is John. "John" refers to John--you know, the man in the backyard [the butler].[/QUOTE]

If you know who you are picking out by your use of the word "John" [the butler], that is correct. But you are not sure if the word "John" is the actual name for the butler without knowing the context in which it used by others.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] Now, let's say I'm not privy to the context in which you used the name, "John". I come over, and I'm told that you said to another, "John is in the back yard." Since there are two people named John in the back yard, I don't know if you used "John" to refer to the butler or the other fellow named John, but then again, I don't need to know how you used the term. [/QUOTE]

That's right, you wouldn't know that if you were not privy to that kind of contextual information. But you draw an invalid conclusion. You say that "I don't need to know how you used the term." This is precisely what you DO need to know if you are going to know which name I used in the first place, "John1" or "John2," before you could know which John I was referring to by my use of the name-type "John." So you need to know the context. And names do directly refer to the individual independent of my actual use of that name. But not all words look like actual names. "John" is not the actual name of the person, unless you already knew that

(C) "John" refers to John.

"John" all by itself without context is not an actual name; intsead, it is a type of name. And "John" in the context where

(C) "John" refers to John

"John" refers to John independently of my usage of it. This is true.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] "John" refers to John,[/QUOTE]

Stop. This is false without a contextual operator before it. You must do something like this:

(C1) "John" refers to John. "(C1)" is providing that context for you to even be able to make sense of what you just said, otherwise you've said nothing at all.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] and I'll let you know which one when I know which one.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly the context you need to provide for your above claim to make any sense at all.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] How do I know that it's a referring term? Because it's possible.[/QUOTE]

You know that it is a referring term by your use of it. But this is altogether different question than whether or not "John" can refer to John indepedent of context--so it doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] It's not possible for the word, "although" to be a referring term, because nothing can instantiate it.[/QUOTE]

This is false. "Although" is not a referring term because no one uses the word that way. It doesn't "fail" to be a referring term because there is nothing instantiating it to which it refers. It wasn't even a referring term to begin with. This is wrong.

Further, you are actually confusing "instantiation" which we reserve for an object instantiating a property, with "reference" which either exists or doesn't exist for a word, and "reference" never holds for ANY words except for names. And the reference-relation holds ONLY between a a name and its actual referent (or object) to which that name refers.

[QUOTE=fast;147599] Terms are either non-referring terms or referring terms,[/QUOTE]

This sounds right. (Although, I am not exactly sure what you mean by "term." But that will work.)

[QUOTE=fast;147599] and referring terms either successfully refer or fail to refer. [/QUOTE]

This is false because it is a contradiction. Can you please explain to me how someone can be kicking while failing to kick? Or how something can be pointing while failing to point? Or, how someone can be shopping while failing to shop. Or, how a referring term can fail to refer?

[QUOTE=fast;147599]You are confusing non-referring terms with referring terms that fail to refer. That's a common confusion.[/QUOTE]

I've already shown this is a contradiction. You are the one performing the "common confusion." In fact, this is the very first confusion students have when they first start talking about "reference" in the philosophy of language. So I don't think you're right at all. It's amazing that you still can't see this after repeated attempts to tell you otherwise.

I refuse to discuss this matter with you until you learn that you've committed a very significant blunder in philosophy of language because it is clearly wrong. The rest of your discussion that follows depends on this very error, so I am going to save my own time by refusing to continue. My apologies.

@Extrain,

[QUOTE=Extrain;147606]I refuse to discuss this matter with you until you learn that you've committed a very significant blunder in philosophy of language because it is clearly wrong. The rest of your discussion that follows depends on this very error, so I am going to save my own time by refusing to continue. My apologies.[/QUOTE]

No apologies necessary. I'll do better to support my case next time, or I'll change my position. Either way, I enjoyed the discussion.

@fast,

fast;147613 wrote:

No apologies necessary. I'll do better to support my case next time, or I'll change my position. Either way, I enjoyed the discussion.

No, you have no "case" at all because your theory rests on a contradiction. So you need to recognize that what you are saying just is a contradiction; you don't have any way out of it!! And whatever subsequent theory you try to offer that rests on this very mistake is going to be fundamentally mistaken--so that your entire theory just is fundamentally mistaken, because it rests on a contradiction; so I strongly recommend that you abandon your theory altogether, before you begin to make any more mistakes. And I don't mean that lightly. No theory can rest on a contradiction--this is why your theory will never even be a theory. Do you remember before why I said it was so important to pay attention to the very meanings of the words we are using? We get lost if we dont. And fast, I am not just being biased here; you are actually saying this:

"John" is a referring term, but also fails to be a referring term. So "John" is a referring term and "John" is not a referring term." So "John" is referring, and "John" is not referring. So "John" both does, and does not, refer. So "John" both does, and does not, refer to John. Contradiction. "Referring" is a transitive, not intransitive, verb--that's your mistake. You seem to think that just because "referring" is an adjective in "referring term," that the subsequent verb "to refer" is intransitive when we say "The name 'John' is referring to..."--but it's not, the verb is transitive: "to refer to something" you need an object to which the word "John" is referring, so that "John" can even be a "referring term" at all. So if there is something to which "John" doesn't refer, then "John" is necessarily not a referring term.

If a term is referring? Guess what! It is ALWAYS REFERRING. It doesn't just stop referring, when it is still referring. It's not as if "John" refers to some things, but not others. That's wrong. Rather, it's that "John" refers to everything (within the contextual domain in which only one objects exists), and never refers to anything else, nor refers to any other Johns. "John" just refers to John, nothing more nothing less. "John" is a name, not a description for just ANY sort of John, or any other sort of entity. "John" just refers to one and only one John. This is exactly why you continually confuse meaning and reference together as if they were one and the same thing--but they are obviously not.

And let me add that (contrary to what you actually said), once a term is referring (ala Kripke and rigid designation of singular terms), it refers to the same object in all possible worlds in which that obect exists, including the actual world. So not only does "John" refer to John here and now in the actual world, "John" refers to John in all possible worlds. So "John" refers to John necessarily. And "John" necessarily refers to John. And suppose context (C) allows me to actually say,

(C) "John" is referring to John.

Suppose John dies, ceases to exist, and erased from existence altogether.

Guess what happens to the referring term "John" provided by context (C) when John is erased from existence.

the referring term "John" ceases to exist too. Because the referent of "John" in this case was introduced into existence by that very context (c)--and so the word "John" underwent both a kind of simultaneous "baptism" and creation at once when we first created that word to designate, or refer, to John himself.

"John" in this case is the token utterance of the word John. The word John is not identical to the word "John." This is why "John" ceases to exist when John the person ceases to exist: the word and the individual became a necessarily tied pair introduced by the context itself when we invented the word "John" in order to refer to John. So "John" given the context is always referring to John the person: it never "stops" referring to John the person so long as John the person exists. And when John the person ceases to exist the word "John" doesn't stay in existence as if there were some kind of self-contradictory referring term that is also non-referring--that's impossible. The word "John" ceases to exist too, whenever John ceases to exist.

This is partly the use/mention distinction again too...

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

Ahab;147598 wrote:

If a person knows that the Bishop moves diagonally and he moves it that way, isn't he still playing according to the rules?

Yes.

Ahab;147598 wrote:

If a person knows that 'the tiger' should be used to refer and he uses it as if it does refer isn't he still playing according the rules of language.?

The "should" is a "moral" term not matching up with his implict knowing, that the fact is, the term doesn't refer.

Ahab;147598 wrote:

Of course, in chess one can't move a piece as if it is moving. That makes no sense.

Sure.

Ahab;147598 wrote:

Language is much more complex. We can use language to lie or confuse others.

yep.

Ahab;147598 wrote:

I'm getting the sense that you and I may differ on the role of intentions in the use of language. I don't think that intentions are part of the rules of language use, do you?

Can you explain? Are you just "game-playing" with language then, like Wittengenstein thought? Didn't he think this for all "correct" language use? I, on the other hand, would think the intentions were crucial (but not always) piece for engaging in correct language use, especially when it comes to one's assertions about the world.

Ahab;147598 wrote:

Was the speaker merely uttering the sentence in order to practice saying it? In that situation it makes perfectly good sense that another could misunderstand and think the speaker was making a reference when he had no intention to.

Do you mean like, as if one person came upon another's "rehearshing for a role" for a character to be played in a play and not know that that is what that person was actually doing, that is, rehearsing instead of asserting something about the world? Wouldn't the listerner just be wrong then?

Oh, I see what you're saying. You want to know, not merely whether the listener misconstrued the speaker's intentions. You want to know whether the lister understood anything about what the speaker said, since the listener misconstrued the speaker's intentions.....good question!! Let me think about that. Smile

@Extrain,

Speaking of context, I wonder if the "location" I've designated in my profile is an impossibility, or a violation of language use, because "here" and "not there" are indexical terms needing context for a reference, but what both terms refer to can only be determined from a subjective point of view or whoever utters the terms, just like "I" and "you" are indexicals. But since they are mentioned on the forum, and the forum is a kind of "absract non-local space," is my adding this "location" as if I were designating a place (subjectively, or contextually) telling even me, where I am at? Whoa!!!!!! It's almost as if I am in two places at once, on the forum, and in front of my computer!!!!!!!.HOLY SCHAMOLEY!!!!!!That is too weird!! Cool!!! Weird, weird, weird....But what if I switch to another computer and get online there, am I then there, and also here on the forum? hahaha!

@Extrain,

Extrain;147662 wrote:

Speaking of context, I wonder if the "location" I've designated in my profile is an impossibility, or a violation of language use, because "here" and "not there" are indexical terms needing context for a reference, but what both terms refer to can only be determined from a subjective point of view or whoever utters the terms, just like "I" and "you" are indexicals. But since they are mentioned on the forum, and the forum is a kind of "absract non-local space," is my adding this "location" as if I were designating a place (subjectively, or contextually) telling even me, where I am at? Whoa!!!!!! It's almost as if I am in two places at once, on the forum, and in front of my computer!!!!!!!.HOLY SCHAMOLEY!!!!!!That is too weird!! Cool!!! Weird, weird, weird....But what if I switch to another computer and get online there, am I then there, and also here on the forum? hahaha!

But what the term "here" means is one thing, and what it refers to is a different thing. "Here" means, "the place where (the speaker) is", but what "here" refers to is a function of where the speaker is.

As Rush Limbaugh sometimes says, "Wherever I am is here". Of course, that is exactly true, but he means it a bit differently.

@Extrain,

Extrain;147618 wrote:

Ahab wrote:

I'm getting the sense that you and I may differ on the role of intentions in the use of language. I don't think that intentions are part of the rules of language use, do you?

Can you explain? Are you just "game-playing" with language then, like Wittengenstein thought? Didn't he think this for all "correct" language use? I, on the other hand, would think the intentions were crucial (but not always) piece for engaging in correct language use, especially when it comes to one's assertions about the world.

If you want to say something then you need to know the rules for using language in order to do so. We can express our intentions through language. But that doesn't mean that intention are a part of the rules for the use of language, does it?

Take this (rather silly) scenario:

You and I are walking through a jungle. You are walking in front of me. You turn around to see how I am doing and see that there is a tiger approaching me from behind me. You say (while pointing toward the tiger) "There's a large monkey behind you!" I turn and start walking in the direction you are pointing because I want to see this large monkey. The tiger eats me.

I think we would both agree that the sentence "There's a large monkey behind you" makes perfectly good sense. There is no violation of the rules of grammar.

Did you express what you intended to by the use of that sentence?

If you saw this as an opportunity to get rid of someone who was always pestering you with questions, then you intended me to think there really was a monkey behind on the very good chance that the tiger would finish me off. You lied.

If you were trying to warn me about a life-threatening situation, then you failed to express that warning with the use of that sentence.

Then why did you use that sentence?

Perhaps you had a brain fart and accidentally said 'monkey' instead of 'tiger'? Unfortunately for me, what you were saying still made sense because you had broken no rules.

When you had that brain fart you could have said 'fierce' instead of 'tiger'. Then you would have broken a rule that results in what you saying having no sense: 'Look there's a large fierce behind you.'

Or, perhaps, you didn't understand the meaning of 'monkey'. You thought 'monkey' meant what competent users of the language think 'tiger' means. In that case, you did violate a rule of usage. You didn't use 'monkey' according to the rules laid down for its use. Unfortunately for me, what you said still made sense.

If you had thought that the word 'fierce' meant the same as 'tiger' then you would also have been violating a rule. But, again, this time the result would have been nonsense.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147820 wrote:

But what the term "here" means is one thing, and what it refers to is a different thing. "Here" means, "the place where (the speaker) is", but what "here" refers to is a function of where the speaker is.

Of course! But that's not the point. I might be just getting a little imaginative here, but the meaning of the proposition expressed (assuming I had actually keyed "I am here and not there") by the sentence I wrote in my profile is not a function of where it is. Like I said, it is in a kind of "abstract-non-local space." I had *said* it when I first wrote it down in my profile.

Take this example. I remember being on a bus once on my way to a bus-station, when I looked in front me at another bus which had a sign on the back of it which read "If you can read this, you are not using public transportation like you should be." I remember I suddenly became deeply troubled, as only philosophers do about these things.

I read it. Therefore, what the sign said was false in virtue of the very meaning of "I" and "you." If someone else in a car had read the sign, then the proposition expressed by the sign would have been true. So technically, the sign itself is not saying anything at all. But only what one thinks or means by what that sign *intended* to express (which it failed to), is true or false.

I don't know. All this might come down to a kind of classic linguistic paradox like the "This sentence is false," paradox.

Quote:

As Rush Limbaugh sometimes says, "Wherever I am is here". Of course, that is exactly true, but he means it a bit differently.

But what he says is technically correct, right? "Here" in this context means "wherever Rush Limbaugh is." And it is trivially true that Rush is wherever he is.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know