A Word Has No Meaning.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Death

Universal understanding of words aren't needed. If a word had a literal meaning, I would think it would be stripped of any real meaning and boiled down to an abstraction, much like mathematics. Memes do a pretty good job anyways.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

and a noun, means nothing without context.

For some reason I feel like in a way this is stating the obvious. You can't possibly have a word without a description of that word, which would require more words. So it is almost as if I'm reading that, "a word has no meaning, because there aren't any words that describe themselves". Does that make sense?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Perhaps I have misread you...but this seldom happens so on some level...my Subconscious is telling me that you are unhappy. Perhaps you are not admitting it to yourself. But although I could be wrong...the logic based upon why you chose this particular topic as well as how you respond is setting off an alarm bell deep inside me.

One of my jobs is work as a Problem Solver. Even though I am too old to be doing this in the field...I am still called on because I have an ability to sense things that others cannot. This is not a boast but a fact. When I read your posts as well as responses...I get this feeling that something is causing you to be slightly out of balance. I don't know you well enough to determine what that is but I am fairly confident on my relying on what my subsonscious allerts me to.

So...if you would like to discuss it privately...PM me. Split Infinity

Hello Split.

Perhaps you have. If this helps at all, although completely off topic: I am very happy with life. I am very happy with the people around me. I live comfortably, and obviously I have enough idle time to think about abstract ideas (I'm aware of this).

You've misread my ATS persona. It's all in act of irony—which I have a profound love for. I'm only here to inspire thought in myself and others. Nothing more.

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

and a noun, means nothing without context.

For some reason I feel like in a way this is stating the obvious. You can't possibly have a word without a description of that word, which would require more words. So it is almost as if I'm reading that, "a word has no meaning, because there aren't any words that describe themselves". Does that make sense?

Yes, complete sense. And because of the limitations of language I am having a hard time explaining it. This is my problem.

I just think philosophers spend too much time contemplating the single word, and not the context.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Words have many meanings and there is much hidden in each and every word, I believe.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Dear LesMisanthrope,

I don't think individual words have meaning, rather the idea has the meaning. The word is an attempt to grasp that meaning. This, of course, is an assumption.

Yes, the emotion is the beginning of words. We have feelings, our essence (Helen Keller being the proof) and we attempt to find symbols, words to describe the situation, the feeling, the emotion. We then attempt to further understand the word, the thought, the emotion and we break down the symbolism into thoughts, subsets of what we are learning. That is evolution of thought. The finding of deeper understandings and the creation of new words and new ways to describe things. Still, the root word had meaning beyond context, context allows us to understand the thought or meaning in greater detail. Or at least that is my thought on the matter.

Agreed
But are we merely naming things, and not really explaining anything? Are we only explaining our own language?

This is what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Well then...I am glad I am wrong. Good luck! Split Infinity

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I think the reason for that is just because of strange etymologies that we discover. Historically speaking, words are recycled and reinvented, so their meanings are fascinating because of how they are still being used.

If we were a telepathic species we wouldn't need words to convey an idea.

Some words are self evident, like Aha, Ow, Ooh, Ah, and Oho.

Some sound in and of themselves create ideas.

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

I think the reason for that is just because of strange etymologies that we discover. Historically speaking, words are recycled and reinvented, so their meanings are fascinating because of how they are still being used.

This is probable.

It's like we've built a labyrinth of words, and we are trapped in it.

Is it worth considering from a different angle? Don't look only at building a meaning with words, consider that a word can be a sculptor's chisel removing things not wanted. "Red" has many meanings, but it eliminates most of the spectrum. Adding words can eliminate more things, "Brick red" precludes "Cherry red."

I'm pretty sure that I'm not right, but it may help improve our view to change it once in a while.

Looking at this post, I'm convinced of it's overall stupidity. Sorry I wrote it.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You use the word "love" to describe the same.. phenomena that I do with the word "chair." Given the topic, I find this a little humorous in context. Hope you get it too.

It is a form of communication, and due to the apparent nature of things "Here," they all have their limitations. Most arguments one sees are that ones view of a word disagrees with another. And thus the semantic mind-games begin. Regardless of this, in my perspective, all of these things give parameter to the overall human context of a given subject. How relevant this human context is to "truth" may be no more than simply being a part of what it describes, as the human context in its entirety is contained in a much larger space. This would suggest, logically, that actually understanding such a thing solely takes place within the human context. Then again, thats coming from a human.. We are all pointing to the same thing, in this way, even in our disagreements. All through individual, and relatively limited, contexts. In understanding this aspect of individual parts of a larger system, we can start to literally see the bigger picture.

Everyone lives in the same universe, the same rules apply to everyone (whatever those may be), but the subjective view of This is akin to the eye of the fly. Many different angles, but looking at the same "thing."

I would propose that words do have meaning, in that they can convey a general idea but never the entirety of the experience. We struggle to even imagine and explore our own intricacies in our ideas, much less when we put them into words for another to interpret through their own individual context. Its messy in a way, but understanding its inherent limitations could lead to a cooperative dissonance rather than a cognitive dissonance. Yes, Im making terms up and feel it is entirely appropriate in this scenario! The strength of operating on this premise it that one understands each of us only has a piece, our own piece, of the puzzle that is presented to us. Adding it together, even in its current "disassembled" state, leads us to see the entirety of the human experience. Now, if we were only to actually put the pieces together...

When we explore anothers perspective on such issues, we can learn so very much. None of us has the whole picture, inherently. At least thats my perspective. May yours differ, in your own way, to celebrate the individual pieces of the whole.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Actually, I have every reason to believe that words mean EVERYTHING, and that's part of the reason humans have so much difficulty and disease. We speak so freely and flippantly, not even realizing the depth in meaning of many of the things we're saying. They are energy...period. Now, when intention/emotion and faith is placed behind a word, it becomes REALLY powerful. But even the Bible states, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was WITH God, and the word WAS God." Words are the driving creative force of our reality, whether idly spoken or not.

Not that I'm a Bible thumper, but I do find it ironic that it and other religious texts emphatically state not to allow untruths to be spoken, otherwise we will prescribe our own death. In other words, speaking lies literally destroys us, physically.

Just some food for thought...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Dear LesMisanthrope,

But are we merely naming things, and not really explaining anything? Are we only explaining our own language?

Perhaps we have to give a general name to a feeling before we can understand it deeper. Perhaps, we have to have a general understanding before we can understand all of the components. I have a very Gestalt view of the world, get a feeling, vague understanding for what all of the components are and then try to analyze the individual pieces. You ask a very fundamental question that has unlimited consequences and I am attempting to give a worthy answer.

You cannot have a language if you do not start with the simplest words and you cannot explain context if you do not have a collection of words (symbols). We are a collection of emotions, we can impact what emotions we feel through our language, we can understand and control how we react regardless of our emotions. In Quantum Physics they are saying that every object is nothing but information. Every thought must therefore be information which means that every word (representation of information) has meaning by itself. If that is too secular for you, let me try this. Every thought is an emotion and every emotion has a thought associated with it. If I scream and grab my arm, people throughout the world will know that I hurt my arm. The images they see and the sounds they hear from me will be understood, yet, they are but language and symbolism.

reply to post by MeesterB


Please, Mr. Gribble, then tell me what meaning that thought of a tree has? Does that thought solidify an object known as 'tree'?

What meaning do thoughts have?

Originally posted by charles1952
Is it worth considering from a different angle?

I certainly think so.

So, thank you for sharing yours. Regardless of any inadequacies you feel about it, it is appreciated and welcome. Of course, I only speak for myself.

Words alone are meaningless. It's only with the use of a brain that words become tangible. You are right, but missing that aspect of it.

Tree... meaningless to an infant. But they know what a tree is, if you show them. Only by the use of the brain does the word equate with a concept.

Love... it's felt at some point by everyone. But the word has no meaning to someone who speaks a different language. The idea must be relayed in a way that they can envisage the meaning.

Our brains give us that ability. It's why we learn, and endeavour to understand.

Sadly, it's not limited to humans, but with our arrogance we assume that it is. hence, we slaughter en masse many social and aware creatures for profit and greed. Then again, they would probably do us the same.

Fear... Water... Hate... words that most likely formed the first basic foundations of any language, as they are intricate to survival. We fear the unknown. We thirst long before death. We hate the enemy.

I dunno, words are meaningless, but we give them meaning. A single word can imply a plethora of desires. Only the understanding differs.

words hold no true meaning, they are nothing more than tools used by the mind to convey a idea or action. But the word itself holds no true meaning......

We could grunt the national anthem and you would know what they mean if you recognize the song.

Words are part of the false ego used to keep anothers mind in chains to the possibility of communication beyond what words themselves represent.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


if u want the truth of it, i could say that

a subject is individual freedom out of true realisation to objective existing conception

when what objectively exist is by definition constant so free without interventions from anywhere or anyelse fact nor noone, then the realisation is free out of freedom as being the exclusive limited fact

what is out of free is always only also free, freedom is like the only thing in nothing, kind of relating nothing to smthg

so the individual freedom as kind of subject out of objective freedom realisation, would kind of invent smthg that justify its being constant there, it cant say im nothing or im free by repeating it, it must invent anything while knowing it just to cool down its fact constancy as normal effect

this is the rise of subject which is also the limits of being only conscious, we are not robots in a space bc objectively we are always relative to that space and what is out of space are not robots either by acting more consciously always from where they are really absolutely not in the space, so they dont have to invent any justification when they dont need to witness their fact of constancy existing since existence is not there, so they can stay out free conscious as they want

so the subject is the one still invention of itself ass, while the conscious is the individual free sense alone left out

the conscious can mean to b true so would keep realizing objective perspective rights and becoming another free individual sense out of change

so physically or in terms of matters, conscious could always say smthg since it is by realizing objects concept or objective conception or truth values fact

but at a certain point of objective realisations, the conscious as being a free individual sense could really so truly reach an end, where it wont b able to say objective anymore while only meaning itself fact being true value

from there a lot would b known of truth and therefor of values but nothing of objective and barely oneself relativity to space knowledge existence

so individual freedom can become really true, so actual value constant present fact
then its reality is about loving other values of truth since its exclusive reality is with truth which is beyond any and beyond all, so the only way to relate since it is constant present as individual value is to love values

so this is the story of love as the end of subjects limitations which prove the lie of love, bc only the true know how to mean it to relate to what cant be limited and cant relate to it since it is not one, it is a way of less value to values facts when at a point the true cant b but that justification to its constant existence or present

so individual freedom become true value bc truth is freedom value and existence is about objective freedom absolute superiors reality for definitive freedom value objective existence fact

i never want to say those things bc all what the word and meanings of love are used for is the opposite, so it is better to say that it never exist and in some way it is true love do not exist

but cheap materialists mean to use the knowledge of subjects end love as the begining of conscious being real
which is disgusting as far as it is vulgar absolute shape of wrong stillness