so, this thread should really be entitled "what is the meaning of "meaning"?" sorry, but i dont see the usefulness of re-inventing the wheel of interpretations. if we had to redefine words for every "big" question we asked, we'd never have time to actually engage those big questions.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, this thread should really be entitled "what is the meaning of "meaning"?" sorry, but i dont see the usefulness of re-inventing the wheel of interpretations. if we had to redefine words for every "big" question we asked, we'd never have time to actually engage those big questions.

You, my friend, would be a terrible philosopher If the meaning of a word is not clear, or ambiguous, in one of these big questions, how exactly do you suggest tackling these big questions? Don't you need to understand the question first before being able to answer it?

Furthermore, I am not redefining a word. I am using existing definitions of a word (that are reflected in its many uses in instances 1- through 5-) and trying to use these definitions in a way that would make sense of the question at hand. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the question, and because of the various definitions of the word 'meaning', or its many different uses, the question, as posed, can take on different answers.

Finally, philosophy, as I see it, is the science (I use this term loosely here) of conceptual clarification. Many of these 'big questions' are big partly because of underlying conceptual muddles in language that result in confusion. In that sense, Wittgenstein was on to something. As for the meaning of meaning, there is a huge tradition in the Analytic school of thought that concerns itself with such matters, though granted, with regards to meaning in the linguistic sense.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, this thread should really be entitled "what is the meaning of "meaning"?" sorry, but i dont see the usefulness of re-inventing the wheel of interpretations. if we had to redefine words for every "big" question we asked, we'd never have time to actually engage those big questions.

Tell that to C.K. Ogden, I. A. Richards, Hilary Putnam, Gottlob Frege, Ferdinand de Saussure, Ludwig Wittgenstein... hell, this list would eventually include pretty much every semanticist, semiotician and philosopher of language there is

(I'm writing a proper post about this, by the way, but it's going to take a little while )

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

There is no meaning of life, yet. We are still living the "Survival of the fittest" lifestyle, only it's economically. The meaning of life won't be a uniform idea until we join together.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus You, my friend, would be a terrible philosopher

which is why i dropped philosophy in favour of political science

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus If the meaning of a word is not clear, or ambiguous, in one of these big questions, how exactly do you suggest tackling these big questions? Don't you need to understand the question first before being able to answer it?

well, the meaning of the word IS clear, until we start getting all esoteric about it. already we've completely bypassed the real question (the meaning of life) and got caught up in philosophical pedantries (the meaning of meaning). while we're at it, why not debat the meaning of "the" or "of"?

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Finally, philosophy, as I see it, is the science (I use this term loosely here) of conceptual clarification. Many of these 'big questions' are big partly because of underlying conceptual muddles in language that result in confusion. In that sense, Wittgenstein was on to something. As for the meaning of meaning, there is a huge tradition in the Analytic school of thought that concerns itself with such matters, though granted, with regards to meaning in the linguistic sense.

i have a great deal of respect for the role philosophy and philosophers have played in (amongst other things) the creation of western liberal democracy. but i really do think the age of the philosopher has passed, and whilst it is a very useful tool for keeping one's mind nimble, too much philosophical debate degenerates into excessive masturbation

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i have a great deal of respect for the role philosophy and philosophers have played in (amongst other things) the creation of western liberal democracy. but i really do think the age of the philosopher has passed, and whilst it is a very useful tool for keeping one's mind nimble, too much philosophical debate degenerates into excessive masturbation

I disagree entirely. Without philosophers we won't live in the star trek Utopian society in the future. It will happen.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN which is why i dropped philosophy in favour of political science

Wimp

quote:

well, the meaning of the word IS clear, until we start getting all esoteric about it. already we've completely bypassed the real question (the meaning of life) and got caught up in philosophical pedantries (the meaning of meaning). while we're at it, why not debat the meaning of "the" or "of"?

But see, it isn't, to me at least, and apparently to countless philosophers who have tackled the question and made innumerable comments about the murkiness of the meaning of the word within the context of the question.

quote:

i have a great deal of respect for the role philosophy and philosophers have played in (amongst other things) the creation of western liberal democracy. but i really do think the age of the philosopher has passed, and whilst it is a very useful tool for keeping one's mind nimble, too much philosophical debate degenerates into excessive masturbation

You're just lazy and I'm just horny, let's settle on that

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN while we're at it, why not debat the meaning of "the" or "of"?

Oh, Russell did that, actually, and it was a great step toward the publishing of his article entitled "On Denoting", which was a classic in the history of philosophy of language

Wittgenstein, on the other hand, had some pretty interesting things to say about the word "this" in his "Philosophical Investigations".

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I disagree entirely. Without philosophers we won't live in the star trek Utopian society in the future. It will happen.

lol!

but seriously, what do you think is creating more social change in the modern era: philosophical inquiry or the almighty dollar? the enlightenment was a period of great change and influence, essentially giving us what we have today. i really don't think the contemporary lockes, hegels, descartes etc are nearly as important as the originals, due to their place in time.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol! but seriously, what do you think is creating more social change in the modern era: philosophical inquiry or the almighty dollar? the enlightenment was a period of great change and influence, essentially giving us what we have today. i really don't think the contemporary lockes, hegels, descartes etc are nearly as important as the originals, due to their place in time.

Let's imagine a little thought experiment. Imagine your were living in the early 17th century, on the cusp of the Enlightenment. And imagine that you are Rene Descartes. Now imagine someone asking you the following question: Rene, why are you waisting your time on this philosophical masturbation. Don't you see, the age of the philosopher is passed. You and all contemporary philosophers are never going to replicate Plato or Aristotle, or even St Thomas Aquinas. Common now, what do you think is creating more social change in the modern era: philosophical inquiry or the almighty sword of the King?

Last edited by Epicurus on Jul-06-2007 at 01:25

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Wimp

the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it -karl marx.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Let's imagine a little thought experiment. Imagine your were living in the early 17th century, on the cusp of the Enlightenment. And imagine that you are Rene Descartes. Now imagine someone asking you the following question: Rene, why are you waisting your time on this philosophical masturbation. Don't you see, the age of the philosopher is passed. You and all contemporary philosophers are never going to replicate Plato or Aristotle, or even St Thomas Aquinas.

modern philosophers are relative unknowns (though to be honest im unsure as to how "famous" some of the enlightenment era thinkers were in their own time). if youre a student then you'd probably have heard of them, but otherwise, i dont see any really powerful outcomes (in a cause and effect context) of any of the modern thinkers i encountered at school. its all academia now -influencing schools of thought no doubt- but effecting measurable change in society? i remain unconvinced. i think the changing social or political zeitgeist to be more a result of public access to information than it is anyone's particular "new" philosophical inquiry. but maybe that's just me.

money & technology is what is shaping the modern era, not philosophical discourse.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Common now, what do think is creating more social change in the modern era: philosophical inquiry or the almighty sword?

unquestionably the almighty sword.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it -karl marx.

I don't get this statement. Either you consider Karl Marx a philosopher or not. If yes (as some do), then he clearly changed the world, so your statement doesn't make sense to me. If not, then you clearly cannot be serious if you believe that philosphers have not changed the world, so your statement still doesnt make sense to me. Since you're such a fan of science and technology, read up a bit on Francis Bacon, a philosopher, and the father of the scientific method and one of the pioneers of the scientific revolution.

quote:

modern philosophers are relative unknowns (though to be honest im unsure as to how "famous" some of the enlightenment era thinkers were in their own time). if youre a student then you'd probably have heard of them, but otherwise, i dont see any really powerful outcomes (in a cause and effect context) of any of the modern thinkers i encountered at school. its all academia now -influencing schools of thought no doubt- but effecting measurable change in society? i remain unconvinced. i think the changing social or political zeitgeist to be more a result of public access to information than it is anyone's particular "new" philosophical inquiry. but maybe that's just me.

The whole point of the thought experiment was to demonstrate that hindsight is always 20/20. And since you're a fan of Karl Marx, let's look at his life. He died poor, decrepid, and without having effected any change whatsoever. His ideas only became influencial after his death. I'm sure many people in this lifetime considered him an unknown.

quote:

money & technology is what is shaping the modern era, not philosophical discourse.

Perhaps, but again, has it always been that way and does it necessarily have to remain that way? The answer to the first question is clearly no, and the answer to the second part of the question is clearly not necessarily so.