Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Syntax and semantics

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 11th, 2018, 5:41 am

Burning ghost wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 3:39 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 10th, 2018, 4:32 pm


When you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".
But what do you “mean” by “understand”? That is all I was saying. There is a limit we’re forced to work within when parsing this or that item of experience.
If you did not know what I mean my understand then you could not even have asked your question.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2866
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by Burning ghost » June 11th, 2018, 6:02 am

Only at a “distance” ... which is my point. The issue is the explicit always finds itself lacking in clarity.

We understand what understanding means by way of use and application in speech. What propels the utterance between people’s to bring forth language is not an item we can readily hold before language and say with unfettered assurance that the meaning is all, yet in language the meaning is all because that is how language is (language in the common sense of the word not in more broad linguistic application - ie. body language and animal language.)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by Mosesquine » June 11th, 2018, 8:12 am

We can make any theory. Physics is a theory of physical things, and chemistry is a theory of chemical things. Semantics is a theory of meaning. There are some methods of some theories. Physics uses mathematical-empirical methods. Semantics uses formal-logical methods. No problem and no question occurs here.

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 14th, 2018, 8:57 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 10th, 2018, 4:32 pm
When you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".
True, but look at your avatar mate... Look at it!

Image
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 14th, 2018, 6:29 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 14th, 2018, 8:57 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 10th, 2018, 4:32 pm
When you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".
True, but look at your avatar mate... Look at it!

Image
So what?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 15th, 2018, 6:33 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 5:41 am
Burning ghost wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 3:39 am


But what do you “mean” by “understand”? That is all I was saying. There is a limit we’re forced to work within when parsing this or that item of experience.
If you did not know what I mean my understand then you could not even have asked your question.
General question to both of you (or anyone else): How do you understand understanding? Can you understand understanding? Is it possible?
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 7th, 2018, 6:16 pm
Formal logic can often convolute natural language more than is necessary.

Sometimes it's useful, in mathematics especially, and it can be useful to know modal logic, or even read Kripke and Lewis, but anything beyond that is just masturbation imo.
"ReasonMadeMasturbation"

There should be a fallacy named after "I don't understand it, so it's immaterial, it is not a valid argument".

Don't feel bad, I also don't understand the second post. You and I need instruction, training and practice to follow that sort of argumentation. Which instruction, training, and practice you and I obviously lack.

But to put a limit on complexity only because it's beyond a person's level of easy and immediate understanding is near-sighted and very, very damaging.

This is what the Church had been doing actually, for thousands of years, and would be still doing if we let it, and is still trying to do in North America (with efforts, for instance, to deny that evolution is an ongoing process.)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1096
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by RJG » June 15th, 2018, 7:15 am

- 1 - wrote:General question to both of you (or anyone else): How do you understand understanding? Can you understand understanding? Is it possible?
Again, understanding is made possible through the 'association' of sensory experiences. For example, when your kindergarten teacher wrote "C-A-T" on the chalkboard and said "Ca-Aa-Tt", then, BOOM, understanding (meaning) was born! ...and when she held up a picture of a soft furry animal along side of the other visual and verbal sensations, then, BOOM, more meaning/understanding was born!

And from this, are the building blocks to more complex understandings (...including the understanding of "understanding"!).
Last edited by RJG on June 15th, 2018, 10:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2866
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by Burning ghost » June 15th, 2018, 7:18 am

-1-

It’s te degree of understanding that matters. Everything uttered is understand in some way or another, even if it’s simply as something that isn’t understood.

Hobbes is just doign a bit of word play to look sophisticaated I think? If not then Mr Hobbes isn’t likely to be someone I am goig to engage with much in the future. Some people talk **** and want the last word so let them and move on. If it happens you yourself are simply ignorant how are ou to know, so just move on and come back later if you have the inclination to.

Personally I prefer to call nonsense and pedantry “nonsense” and “pedantry”, rather than pussyfoot around trying not to hurt people’s feelings.

You could well ask how can I understand tennis. Same difference! I imagine if you studied the history of tennis, sport in general, the equipment used, and spoke to people who lay tennis professionally or not, then you’d come to a better understanding. The more you’re willing to reach out for new experience and perpsective the more you’ll understand understanding - by acting rather than sittign around pretending to have any particular full understanding of anything.

A word, even the word “understand”, is a approximation of felt/acted experience. That is all I was saying. Mr Hobbes decided to get all silly about it for some reason, or I suddenly lacked the patience to give a poo poo so considered it silly ;)

The gripe over me saying “just words” seems to have offended. Unsure why, but I suspect misattributed views of “absolute” and/or “truth” are teh underlying issue with Mr Hobbes.

After all, I cannot eat the word “banana” and I don’t need a word for “banana” in order to eat one, just to eat one “knowingly”.

If yuou wanna see how stupid people can get with this stuff “read” Heidegger or Derrida.

Oh new post ... or listen to RJG play around with words for a more simple example of taking words to mean something “other”
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1096
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by RJG » June 15th, 2018, 7:45 am

Words are just "labels" for experiences.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 15th, 2018, 10:43 am

-1- wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 6:33 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 5:41 am

If you did not know what I mean by "understand" then you could not even have asked your question.
General question to both of you (or anyone else): How do you understand understanding? Can you understand understanding? Is it possible?
If you do not understand 'understanding' then you could, not only, not understand the answer, you could not even ask the question.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 15th, 2018, 10:44 am

RJG wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 7:45 am
Words are just "labels" for experiences.
What experience do I have for black hole?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1096
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by RJG » June 15th, 2018, 11:18 am

RJG wrote:Words are just "labels" for experiences.
ThomasHobbes wrote:What experience do I have for black hole?
If "black hole" has meaning to you, then there exists an "aha!" experiential moment; a recognition point caused by the 'association' of (other) sensory experiences. -- The words "black hole" is the "label" given for these felt experiences.

If "black hole" is meaningless to you, then there are no associated experiences.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 15th, 2018, 12:32 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:44 am

What experience do I have for black hole?
I shudder to think. "Billy-Jean."

Seriously speaking, "black" is an experience, as in lack of colour, "hole" is an experience, as in lack of material other than gaseous surrounded by solids

On the other hand, force is an experience, distance between objects is an experience, light is an experience, gravity is an experience. These alone are enough to give one an understanding what black holes are on a compound experiential basis.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 15th, 2018, 12:39 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:43 am
-1- wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 6:33 am


General question to both of you (or anyone else): How do you understand understanding? Can you understand understanding? Is it possible?
If you do not understand 'understanding' then you could, not only, not understand the answer, you could not even ask the question.
I am sorry, but anyone is capable of asking any question.

And it may be the case I don't understand understanding now, but given a proper explanation, I shall after that understand understanding.

On the other hand, if I understood understanding, as you claim, I should be able to give a proper account or description of it. However, that I can't, ergo, I don't understand how to understand.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Post Reply