One must always be cautious to discover and note "circular definitions," known also as the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 1st, 2020, 11:02 pm I got into a discussion where we ended up with some circular definitions. One of the questions was whether certain words, like "meaningful" and "relevant" were wholly subjective or whether they might have objective meanings.
The objective definition of "meaningful" would depend upon an objective definition of "meaning". And as I thought about this, a weird notion popped up:
The source of meaning is consequence. The meaning of a thing is the consequence(s) of the thing.
If the consequences are subjective, then the meaning is subjective. But if the consequences are objective, then the meaning is objective.
We usually equate the meaning of a word with its definition. The definition is inductively derived by the use of the word in speech. How does the word operate in speech? Is it a verb indicating some action? Then the consequence of the word is to convey the notion of that action, in some context, to someone else. Is the word a noun? Then the consequence of the word is to recall that person or thing to someone's mind. The definition of the word is the notion being conveyed, and the meaning of the word is the consequences of conveying that notion.
So, when we use the word "meaningful" regarding some notion, we mean that the notion has some significant consequence of particular relevance to us and our lives.
What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
This rankles, although I find it difficult to say exactly why. We all know that everything is connected to everything else. It's one of those truisms that we all know of, but is not especially useful. You can extrapolate the universe from a piece of fairy cake, as the Great Man wrote, but how is this useful? It's easier to see from the other end: no part of the universe, no matter how small, exists in isolation. Everything is connected to everything else, in a huge network of associations. Gravity is one type of association. Every part of the universe that has mass is attracted to every other part that also has mass. Moving one tiny piece changes the whole, universe-wide, network of gravitational attraction. Cause and effect is another type of association. But I think it's one of very, very, many such types of association.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 11:21 am The notion of cause and effect organizes events in a useful way. It pairs two related events, event1 as the cause and event2 as the effect. Then we move up one event and event2 becomes the cause and event3 becomes the effect.
So I don't disagree with your idea about causality, in this context, but I can't see how it's only about causation. And as for every effect carrying on to become a cause, well, it is surely possible, but can it really apply to every effect? I think not. Then there are multiple causes, and multiple effects, to consider. I just think the picture is more complicated than you're painting it. My own feeling is that this is not a great way to elucidate meaning. But I've been wrong before....
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Thank you. I think I expanded a bit on this here:h_k_s wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 5:03 pm@Pattern-chaser , I like your isolation and identification of "cause and effect."Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 9:24 am
Taking cause and effect - another thorny topic - as an example, we can see that causes have consequences - their effects - while effects might not. Your idea seems to apply only to causes?
That seems more like it. Meaning is something we ascribe to certain things.
It is true that all parts of the universe (i.e. Everything) are connected (or associated with) all other parts, but I think it's a gross and unjustifiable over-simplification to assume that all these parts can be seen either as causes or effects. When all those many types of associations are considered, it seems unlikely that they all reduce to two such simple descriptions: cause and effect.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2020, 8:58 am ...We all know that everything is connected to everything else. It's one of those truisms that we all know of, but is not especially useful. You can extrapolate the universe from a piece of fairy cake, as the Great Man wrote, but how is this useful? It's easier to see from the other end: no part of the universe, no matter how small, exists in isolation. Everything is connected to everything else, in a huge network of associations. Gravity is one type of association. Every part of the universe that has mass is attracted to every other part that also has mass. Moving one tiny piece changes the whole, universe-wide, network of gravitational attraction. Cause and effect is another type of association. But I think it's one of very, very, many such types of association.
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
I think the key is this: ALL of the utility of the notion of reliable causation comes from knowing the specific causes of specific effects. Knowing that the coronavirus is the cause of the respiratory disease, and knowing that the body's immune system can be primed to attack that virus by vaccination, gives us hope that soon we will have a vaccine that will effectively eliminate the effects of the coronavirus in the near future. If the cause were unknown or unknowable, then we'd probably be sacrificing virgins to the local deity.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2020, 8:58 amThis rankles, although I find it difficult to say exactly why. We all know that everything is connected to everything else. It's one of those truisms that we all know of, but is not especially useful. You can extrapolate the universe from a piece of fairy cake, as the Great Man wrote, but how is this useful? It's easier to see from the other end: no part of the universe, no matter how small, exists in isolation. Everything is connected to everything else, in a huge network of associations. Gravity is one type of association. Every part of the universe that has mass is attracted to every other part that also has mass. Moving one tiny piece changes the whole, universe-wide, network of gravitational attraction. Cause and effect is another type of association. But I think it's one of very, very, many such types of association.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 11:21 am The notion of cause and effect organizes events in a useful way. It pairs two related events, event1 as the cause and event2 as the effect. Then we move up one event and event2 becomes the cause and event3 becomes the effect.
So I don't disagree with your idea about causality, in this context, but I can't see how it's only about causation. And as for every effect carrying on to become a cause, well, it is surely possible, but can it really apply to every effect? I think not. Then there are multiple causes, and multiple effects, to consider. I just think the picture is more complicated than you're painting it. My own feeling is that this is not a great way to elucidate meaning. But I've been wrong before....
But the notion of universal causal necessity/inevitability tells us nothing useful. It has no practical implications for any real-life scenarios. It makes no meaningful distinction between any two events. When we have a decision to make, the only help it can give us is "Well, I don't know what you will decide, but whatever you decide will be inevitable." Totally useless.
The notion that it can make us more compassionate and just is misguided. If inevitability excuses the thief who stole your wallet, then it also excuses the judge who cuts off the thief's hand.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
And the meaning of Rene Descartes is all of his consequences, one of which was the notion "I think, therefore I am".h_k_s wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 5:01 pm
Well, for philosophical inquiry purposes, you must begin somewhere.
While Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, together with the rest of the ancient and pre-Descartes world never really questioned this notion of beginnings, it was Rene Descartes himself who in 1637 in his writing of "Descourse on the Method," he posits "cogito ergo sum."
Thus, the "meaning of a thing" is its existence, not just its "consequence."
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
You started this topic to discuss the meaning of meaning, but now it seems that your aim is to discuss causation and "inevitability". Fair enough; there's nothing wrong with discussing these things. But is it the meaning of meaning we're aiming at, or...?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2020, 10:55 am I think the key is this: ALL of the utility of the notion of reliable causation comes from knowing the specific causes of specific effects. Knowing that the coronavirus is the cause of the respiratory disease, and knowing that the body's immune system can be primed to attack that virus by vaccination, gives us hope that soon we will have a vaccine that will effectively eliminate the effects of the coronavirus in the near future. If the cause were unknown or unknowable, then we'd probably be sacrificing virgins to the local deity.
But the notion of universal causal necessity/inevitability tells us nothing useful. It has no practical implications for any real-life scenarios. It makes no meaningful distinction between any two events. When we have a decision to make, the only help it can give us is "Well, I don't know what you will decide, but whatever you decide will be inevitable." Totally useless.
The notion that it can make us more compassionate and just is misguided. If inevitability excuses the thief who stole your wallet, then it also excuses the judge who cuts off the thief's hand.
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
We can discuss anything you want, of course. But you introduced the topic into the thread here:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 4th, 2020, 9:30 amYou started this topic to discuss the meaning of meaning, but now it seems that your aim is to discuss causation and "inevitability". Fair enough; there's nothing wrong with discussing these things. But is it the meaning of meaning we're aiming at, or...?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2020, 10:55 am I think the key is this: ALL of the utility of the notion of reliable causation comes from knowing the specific causes of specific effects. Knowing that the coronavirus is the cause of the respiratory disease, and knowing that the body's immune system can be primed to attack that virus by vaccination, gives us hope that soon we will have a vaccine that will effectively eliminate the effects of the coronavirus in the near future. If the cause were unknown or unknowable, then we'd probably be sacrificing virgins to the local deity.
But the notion of universal causal necessity/inevitability tells us nothing useful. It has no practical implications for any real-life scenarios. It makes no meaningful distinction between any two events. When we have a decision to make, the only help it can give us is "Well, I don't know what you will decide, but whatever you decide will be inevitable." Totally useless.
The notion that it can make us more compassionate and just is misguided. If inevitability excuses the thief who stole your wallet, then it also excuses the judge who cuts off the thief's hand.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16736#p356918
And you did it with a wink
In any case, universal causal necessity/inevitably has no meaning, because it has no practical consequences.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Contra Putnam, I say, "Cut the pie any way you like; meanings only occur in the head."
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
"Cogito ergo sum" is Descartes seminal monumental contribution to epistemology and philosophy, yes, true.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 4th, 2020, 7:04 amAnd the meaning of Rene Descartes is all of his consequences, one of which was the notion "I think, therefore I am".h_k_s wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 5:01 pm
Well, for philosophical inquiry purposes, you must begin somewhere.
While Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, together with the rest of the ancient and pre-Descartes world never really questioned this notion of beginnings, it was Rene Descartes himself who in 1637 in his writing of "Descourse on the Method," he posits "cogito ergo sum."
Thus, the "meaning of a thing" is its existence, not just its "consequence."
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Not quite. Look:Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 4th, 2020, 10:07 amWe can discuss anything you want, of course. But you introduced the topic into the thread here:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 4th, 2020, 9:30 am
You started this topic to discuss the meaning of meaning, but now it seems that your aim is to discuss causation and "inevitability". Fair enough; there's nothing wrong with discussing these things. But is it the meaning of meaning we're aiming at, or...?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16736#p356918
And you did it with a wink
The wink only acknowledged that causality is a difficult subject, and my comment 'introduced' causality as an example only. I anticipated that there were/are many such examples, of which causality is but one. I merely observed that, while causes might well have consequences, as you describe, their effects might not. This seems to muddle your idea that "The meaning of a thing is the consequence(s) of the thing". Do things that have no consequence(s) also have no meaning?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 9:24 am Taking cause and effect - another thorny topic - as an example...
So, is it causality, or is it the meaning of meaning?
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Effects are consequences by definition. The effect is what the cause means.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:47 am I merely observed that, while causes might well have consequences, as you describe, their effects might not. This seems to muddle your idea that "The meaning of a thing is the consequence(s) of the thing". Do things that have no consequence(s) also have no meaning?
And yes, things that have no consequences would have no meaning.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
On your view, part of the meaning of a piece of music, say, might be to make someone deaf (If the music is loud enough, for example)?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 9:32 amEffects are consequences by definition. The effect is what the cause means.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:47 am I merely observed that, while causes might well have consequences, as you describe, their effects might not. This seems to muddle your idea that "The meaning of a thing is the consequence(s) of the thing". Do things that have no consequence(s) also have no meaning?
And yes, things that have no consequences would have no meaning.
And we could say that the meaning of most pieces of music include to make people disgusted, to make people elated, etc.? (Since most music has that gamut of reactions from people--different people have different tastes)
- Benj96
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: May 5th, 2020, 9:00 am
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Why? Because contrast "defines". Without contrasting events or opposites there is no change. If everything is white it cannot be called white until there is some black or other colour to differentiate it into two qualifiable things. For example ... meaning in the universe is exemplified by fundamental laws for example "equal", "opposite", "charged", "reaction" , "motion" "entropy" "reverse" etc ...all of which are repeatable and stable qualities of the universe that governs how it behaves. They have meaning because they permit change and alterations in information and value. If a phenomenon changes too fast you cannot define it because it is so different than it was a second ago. If something never changes at all you also cannot define it because you cant be aware of it. No information is provided for registration of the thing or event. They may as well be the same. But if something changes in the middle of the spectrum and at a certain rate then it can have meaning because meaning requires stability but also change. We call this a "dynamic equilibrium". If an atom no longer looks or behaves like an atom how can you still call it an atom it would be meaningless. So meaning in the universe is proportional to the time for which a phenomenon remains constant with most meaning in the middle and least at both extremes. This is why energy and mass are so difficult to actually define without just equating them to eachother . Check out how heisenbergs uncertainty principle can be used as a basis for linguistics and meaning permanence as well as the role of adverbs of probability and verb tenses and you will be shocked by its effectiveness at describing the function of language.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
You miss the point. Effects are consequences, in this example, I agree. But do effects have consequences? That was my question. You said before that effects become causes, and thereby have consequences conferred upon them, but it is not clear that all effects become causes in their own right. So some effects are meaningless, in your opinion? And maybe some other sorts/types of events too? I don't think defining meaning by consequences works very well. ... Not that I'm aware of a better way to define meaning, you understand.
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: What is the Meaning of "Meaning"?
Yeah. That would be a subjective consequence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 9:42 amOn your view, part of the meaning of a piece of music, say, might be to make someone deaf (If the music is loud enough, for example)?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 9:32 am
Effects are consequences by definition. The effect is what the cause means.
And yes, things that have no consequences would have no meaning.
And we could say that the meaning of most pieces of music include to make people disgusted, to make people elated, etc.? (Since most music has that gamut of reactions from people--different people have different tastes)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023