Semantics

Interbane · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:15 am Post subject: Semantics

Recent readings have encouraged my mind to proceed away from silly semantics games. My lack of acquaintance with philosophy has allowed me in the past to participate in stupid debates as silly as if we were to debate the word 'know'. Words mean nothing more than what the wordsmith intends, forever detached from him at the moment of proposal(which comes after conception) and embodying only his intent. Such proposals, with validity as a virtue, can be considered objective knowledge.

I see a problem with this. It's that knowledge which is of the third world(independent from subjectivity, though influencing it and influenced by it), is self-contained and harnesses intent not attributable to any man, though it embodies the intent of the person who first proposed it(it is detached). To then criticize this knowledge in understanding it's intent may be to quibble over the definitions of words. Yet, it's the concept which is embodied by the words that count, not the words themselves. The medium cannot be the message in this case, as it would imply too much subjectivity, which is counter to the idea of objective knowledge. Maybe I've already read the answer, in what Popper proposes as a 'Metalanguage". Read my thread in "Additional Books Discussion", 'Objective Knowledge' for more on that.

On a side note, reading books like "Objective Knowledge" falls directly under my tentative theory(which hasn't yet been ossified) that relates to the book "Blink"(which I haven't read yet ::20

) It's that, the more that I understand the fundamentals, the better I can apply that to everything which it is fundamental to(all of knowledge in the case of Epistemology). So, in reading books like this, it offers progress in all that I know, and all that I propose. "Guns, Germs, and Steel(GGS)" helps me understand why Europeans slaughtered Indians, yet "Objective Knowledge" helps me understand "GGS", among the infinity of my experiences.

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: The Medium and the Message

"The medium cannot be the message in this case,..."

The medium is ALWAYS the message, or at least directly influences the message as it is sent, whether the medium is mouth, letter, wallposter, newspaper, book, tv show, whatever.

I don't think it is at all possible to separate the message from the medium. You cannot have a message, and therefore pass on knowledge, without a medium. That's why semantics and semantic games are so useless.

Marti in Mexico

Interbane · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:33 am Post subject: Re: The Medium and the Message

Popper speaks of a metalanguage. As an example he uses a german sentence that embodies a concept. I'd agree that the medium cannot be separated from the message, that's absurd, but it is not equivalent to the message in the case of a metalanguage. The subjectivity of this problems is precisely what a metalanguage serves to solve, by severely limiting the impact the medium has upon the message.

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Medium and the Message

Do you think that's possible? To limit, severely or minimally, the effect the medium has on the message? Intuitively, I don't think that any limitation whatsoever is possible.

Marti in Mexico

Interbane · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: The Medium and the Message

Give me an example of the different influences medium would have upon a simple message, let's say that the message is "The sun will rise tomorrow on the equator." Let's call this proposition "P", or P for short.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: The Medium and the Message

The problem is that we're already dealing with a medium in your particular message. How are we to translate P into another medium without carrying with the message the effects already imparted to it by its original linguistic conception? Would the message take that form at all were it not expressed in a given medium?

It might be more workable to begin by creating our message in multiple mediums, so that we find the message itself stratified between mediums -- otherwise, I'm not sure that we can propose a message divorced from medium, and all of our potential examples will have already been effected by the very thing we're attempting to test. What we might do is take several subjects -- Marti, Interbane, and myself, if not more -- assign to each subject a medium, then ask them to construct a message in that medium. For instance, we might assign Marti language, Interbane image, and myself music. Then we'd ask each person to render a message in their assigned medium, corresponding to something very narrowly proscribed, thus: "Write a message conveying what happens when water is heated to 100 degrees clesius." By writing our instructions thus, we to some degree avoid giving the message form, allowing the subjects to impose form by virtue of their mediums.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: The Medium and the Message

The medium cannot be the message in this case, as it would imply too much subjectivity, which is counter to the idea of objective knowledge.

The desire for objective knowledge cannot, itself, overcome the apparant subjectivity of our tools in the search for objective knowledge. Unless you can find some practical means for overcoming subjectivity, then we are constrained to it. As such, semantics will continue to be an obstacle in philosophical debate. The only practical method I know for dealing with semantic obstacles is to rigorously examine the word and come to an agreed interpretation.

Maybe I've already read the answer, in what Popper proposes as a 'Metalanguage".

Latin served for some time as a form of metalanguage -- it's vernacular use was effectively over, allowing philosophers to narrowly circumscribe meanings that might have otherwise allowed for a broader range of interpretation. But the tendency towards an equality of education stifled that function. On the whole, I don't think a metalanguage is terribly practical as a solution to the problems of semantics, althought I'd be interested in seeing you argue Popper's or your own position on the matter.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject: In Defense of Semantics

In a work of philosophical monologue, or rhetoric, semantic considerations may rightly seem like so much useless quibbling. And it is rightly said that words are merely the tool of author, malleable to whatever form is imposed upon them. Words always mean what is meant, and only interpretation frustrates their function, but that is more the concern of the receiver than it is that of the giver of a monologue.

Such conclusions fall apart, however, when the medium changes. This is a fact illustrated long ago by that venerable old dissident Socrates. If, in Plato's hands, the semantic disvertisments of Socratic method have come to seem like a slight of hand, we may still discern their more central significance to the form of the dialogue.

What we're dealing with in a forum like this is, or ought to be, dialogue. As a form of philosophical inquiry, dialogue must differ from the rhetorical monologue in a number of significant ways. The difference that is most to our point in this discussion is that true dialogue necessitates consensus. And consensus, for its part, destroys the linguistic authority of the rhetor. The moment another voice is added to the fray, the rhetor loses his lisence to control the content of language, to circumscribe the meaning of words as narrowly as his thesis demands. A dialogue is a potent form of intellectual pursuit, but it cannot function from opposite sides of a unbridged schism. Dialogue requires, if nothing else, a consensus of language.

The Socratic dialogue, taken as a thing apart from the often criticized Socratic method, is a methodological answer to the sort of abuses of rhetorical authority that we now identify with Sophistry. The Sophist, like any good rhetor, was free to use words however he liked. He alone could determine the meaning of the words he used, and the meaning was determined in service to a particular end. A good Sophist could stifle debate by taking full advantage of his platform for the duration of his monologue. The more he applied to the terminology of debate a narrowly circumscribed range of meanings, the less the audience was capable of addressing his arguments outside those meanings.

Moving from the tradition of the rhetor to the practice of dialogue, we immediately run into certain difficulties with the available language. The more we talk about useful abstractions like "knowledge", "morality", "humanity", the more we stumble upon incongruities in our use of those terms. The clear implication is that there are subtle underlying differences in meaning ascribed to the common terminology. If dialogue is to function at all, there must be some way of bringing usage and meaning into consensus. The points at which we are unable to arrive at a consensus as to what a word means or how it may be used are the points at which any common pursuit of understanding fails us.

The solution to the problem of such incongruities is quite simply the process of semantic compromise. Dialogue cannot do without it. And unless we are willing to see a forum like this turn into little more than a point of accumulation for unlistening rhetors, we must also recognize our own ability to progress as a group. Our semantic problems have not be the result of the very existence of semantics, but rather a problem of understanding the proper methodology of semantic clarification. And we will be better served not by the total abandonment of semantic debate, but rather by the exploration of modes of semantics that prove most fruitful to discussion. Anything else, we must count as the failure of this community's attempt at genuine philosophy.

Interbane · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:41 am Post subject: Re: In Defense of Semantics

MA: "Our semantic problems have not be the result of the very existence of semantics, but rather a problem of understanding the proper methodology of semantic clarification. And we will be better served not by the total abandonment of semantic debate, but rather by the exploration of modes of semantics that prove most fruitful to discussion."

Well said. A problem in the methodology that I always see is that when one party uses certain words, it's not even considered that the word could mean something else, though it does. There may be misunderstandings that sprout from misinterpretations due to varied usages of words. These misunderstandings may be subtle, and may throw off the intent of the author in context, yet still be too subtle to draw attention.

I sometimes thing of G.E. Moore's refutation of Idealism. His entire refutation was an attack on "To be is to be percieved". It was an attack on words. I'm still undecided on the virtue of an undertaking like this.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: In Defense of Semantics

Quote:
A problem in the methodology that I always see is that when one party uses certain words, it's not even considered that the word could mean something else, though it does.

Sometimes people do realize a word has different meanings, but will purposely choose the meaning that undergirds their position. Semantic games are abundant in political discourse especially. The word 'liberal' has been turned into a four letter word, which is sad considering what it's main meanings are. The word 'Intellectual' is another.

I think this is more the case than innocent misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the meanings of words. IMO, this is why semantic games are the bane of any progress in reaching a concensus amoung people. It is a very effective tool in the obfuscation of rational discourse.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

marti1900 · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: In Defense of Semantics

"Anything else, we must count as the failure of this community's attempt at genuine philosophy. "

Attempting philosophy? ::171

I thought we were here to talk about books.

(Just pulling your chain. ::77

Attempting philosphy is one reason why this board is becoming my favorite place on the net.)

Marti in Mexico


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT