What Is the Meaning of "Meaning"?

[Josephphi235]

I'm posting a five-page portion of Chap. 3 in my manuscript, A Dialogue on Opposing Worldviews.

If anyone wishes to engage in abstruse philosophical thinking, please feel free to read this portion of my book, and I'd be happy for any sort of evaluation -- negative, positive, reserved, dismayed, "dull", "dry", engaging, or whatever.

Here's the first part of Chap. 3:


                                      [Early Next Week]

                                         
                                              Chapter 3
                        The Nature of Meaning in Language

Scepticus: Well Studiosus, we’re back again for some thought-provoking discussions. Did you take my advice and “let your hair down” a bit last weekend?

Studiosus: Scepticus, I had a moderately good weekend, and I felt no need to engage with the profligate lifestyles. However, to be honest, I was bit more relaxed and inclined toward withdrawing my guard than is usually the case.

Scepticus: One issue that my book will address, and which I surmise that you and I disagree on sharply is the matter of meaning in language. I take it upon myself to propose that meaning exists, if anywhere at all, in the objective properties of linguistic conventions that are socially constructed. That is, meanings exist in dictionaries, in books, magazines, on websites, etc. And they come to possess meaning by our social constructs – we construct meanings, and we represent those meanings via symbols. That, then, is the essence of meaning. Can you argue with that?

Studiosus: Scepticus, I feel compelled to rather strongly dissent from your views. After all, meaning never exists “out there” in some objective domain. Rather, meaning is in the consciousness that finds a symbol or state of affairs to be meaningful. As an example, let’s suppose that I see some page of writing in French. Given the fact that I know essentially no French at all, a page of French script is likely totally meaningless to me – it conveys nothing to me, and thus has no meaning to me. Now, to a person familiar with French writing, the writing will likely make very much sense, and it’ll be meaningful. Then, in his consciousness, the writing has meaning, whereas in my consciousness, there is no meaning at all. Is this not sufficient proof that meaning resides in one’s consciousness? In other words, the French literary symbols are only meaningful to a consciousness that has been trained to comprehend French writing. Otherwise, the same writing is entirely meaningless. This logically annihilates the idea that meaning resides in symbols. Furthermore, conventions don’t matter here – except in the sense that the reader of the French script only finds meaning in it by virtue of what the reader learned to be proper French. In the latter sense, conventions exist such that in order for the reader to understand the writer, the former must be aware of the “conventions” of the latter in order that meaning is conveyed to the reader. Since each individual consciousness must be properly trained and informed so as to render the French writing meaningful, the real meaning is found in the consciousness of the writer and the corresponding consciousness of the reader. The two consciousnesses communicate via mutually understood sets of symbols. Wittgenstein’s ideas of language being a game certainly have valid points; we must know what the game is (consensually) all about in order to find meaning in the language. Let me use another example to illustrate my point: suppose I’m a new employee at a job, and my coworkers frequently are heard making comments about Doc saying such-and-such, or doing so-and-so. Now, since I’m new there, I haven’t yet come to know who this Doc is that they’re referring to. Maybe he’s a supervisor or a technician at the job. But while everyone else knows what (who) “Doc” refers to, it is essentially a meaningless term to me, because I’ve not been initiated into their linguistic styles yet. To my consciousness, “Doc” is meaningless; to their consciousnesses, the meaning is clear. Therefore, I once more clench my point by affirming that it’s only in the mind (the consciousness) that “Doc” has meaning. Surely, you don’t mean to be able to gainsay this, do you?

Scepticus: Studiosus, your rigorous logic does get a bit old. It must be conceded that the consciousness must be socially developed sufficiently well to find meaning in language, and that without the conscious preparedness, meaning does not occur. However, I still wish to argue that meaning is a social construct, and that its genuine existence is in the physical sounds or symbols that are socially understood to possess certain meanings.

Studiosus: But Scepticus, you are running in circles. You say that the meaning is socially constructed and that it exists in sounds and symbols, and you even concede that the consciousness must be properly prepared in order to find the meaning present; however, you wish to deny that all it takes is for one factor to be absent to wipe out any meaning, and that is the factor of the conscious disposition toward a certain symbol. I’m fond of examples; so let me throw another one at you. Suppose you and I are discussing some matter, and I say to you “Suzie invited me over for dinner”. But utterly unbeknown to me, you have an aunt named Suzie, and since you didn’t know just how much I socialize in circles where your aunt goes, you assumed that the Suzie I referred to was your aunt. Thus, to you, “Suzie” meant your aunt, whereas to me when I used the name “Suzie”, it meant my co-worker – not your aunt. Where does the “real” meaning exist in this case? Since I was the one to use “Suzie” in that instance, my meaning of the name had to be understood in order for you to understand me. Thus, one might say that the “real” meaning of “Suzie” here was a name for my coworker – not your aunt. However, unless one of us elucidated further, you and I would go separate ways having very different meanings for “Suzie” as used on that occasion. The meaning each of us held was precisely in our individual consciousness, and this again illustrates my point that meaning always resides in one’s consciousness – never elsewhere. But the only way for us to communicate effectively is for us to share enough conscious states concerning various matters of the application of important symbols to enable the sharing of meanings. I do not need to ever have heard of Professor Welt in order for me to understand a German word he used in some phrase, if somewhere I’d learned from some book or teacher enough about the German language. By proper preparation of my consciousness, his meaning of the word in question that I saw in a written phrase can be quite comprehensible to me, even if this was my first time to ever hear of him or anything he wrote. My consciousness interpreted that set of symbols (the word in question) to possess certain meaning, and thus Professor Welt and I shared a common conscious understanding of the word being discussed. But the bottom line is that this is not social construction so much as it’s a matter of development of the individual conscious states that determine the ability to communicate.

Scepticus: You’ve gotten a bit longwinded, Studiosus, but I grant you that conscious states are part of the equation. Yet conscious states are where social construction takes place. Social construction involves collective consciousness, so to speak. Thus, language still turns out to be socially constructed.

Studiosus: Apart from some form of mystical universal consciousness, etc., we can hardly think in terms of “collective consciousness”. We could get into issues surrounding universals versus particulars and so-on, but I wish to focus on the individual consciousness. But even if one were to concede that meaning is a social construct, it would still destroy the idea of meaning as residing in physical objects, symbols, sounds, and so-on, because a collective consciousness is still a matter (ultimately) of consciousness. Therefore, it seems to me, Scepticus, that your philosophy of radical materialism is pretty much dealt a fatal blow. Maybe we can discuss such issues in future debates?

[rivergirl]

Joseph, could you explain the premise of your book.  It's written a bit like a screen play.  The writing is very stiff and formal, but that might be appropriate for these two characters.  I need to know more about them to give an opinion about this, but it's absolutely vital for the conversation to be believable.  I personally don't know anyone who would speak so pretentiously, but I'm sure there are people like that. 

I'd love to know the setting for this conversation.  I have to admit that I didn't get through the whole piece because it felt a little like reading a homework assignment and made me stretch my poor little brain.  That being said, it was thought provoking.  Studiosus and Scepticus are both right in my opinion on the meaning of meaning.

[Josephphi235]

Joseph, could you explain the premise of your book.  It's written a bit like a screen play.  The writing is very stiff and formal, but that might be appropriate for these two characters.  I need to know more about them to give an opinion about this, but it's absolutely vital for the conversation to be believable.  I personally don't know anyone who would speak so pretentiously, but I'm sure there are people like that. 

I'd love to know the setting for this conversation.  I have to admit that I didn't get through the whole piece because it felt a little like reading a homework assignment and made me stretch my poor little brain.  That being said, it was thought provoking.  Studiosus and Scepticus are both right in my opinion on the meaning of meaning.

Thank you for your comments, observations, and questions. I'll try to address your questions the best I can. Here's how I understand this philosophical manuscript: First off, let me just address your questions about the setting in which this dialogue takes place. Of course, it's all just in the imagination, but the setting is in a small restaurant, where there's a bar, drinking, eating, socializing, etc. Now, the question might arise about what sorts of people would meet in a restaurant, drink a few beers, and discuss such highly abstruse, abstract, and difficult philosophical issues. Well, the two fellows carrying on the dialogue are both professors at a university. They like to do some discussions of philosophical issues over a few beers, and they get into philosophy so deep that they're likely to totally forget about the beer and let it get warm before it's all consumed. Once they get into the discussions, they mostly tune out other customers and restaurant staff.

Studiosus is the much more "conservative" of the two, and he is a devout theist -- suggested to be a mystic by Scepticus -- and gets very deep into logical, mathematical, and philosophical issues, as well as grappling with the deepest aspects of the spiritual path that his intellect, intuition, and meditation can allow for. Scepticus, though, is, for the most part, very liberal philosophically, and he is a strict materialist who does not believe in God, the spirit world, any genuine existence of powers of mind (believing as he does that the "mind" is merely a process of physical brain activity -- no soul, no free will, no efficacy of mental energy, or the like), or any realities that are diverse from laws of physics governing the physical properties of the universe.

Thus, those two fellows valiantly seek to demolish each other's worldviews, and they hammer away hour after hour, with attempts at shoring up their own philosophy of reality and demoting their opponent's views. This book is essentially written, not as a story to entertain, but principally to challenge philosophical stances that I (the author) regard to be untenable and (oftentimes) greatly destructive of the well-being of humanity.

The purpose of this book, after all, is to debate philosophical issues -- primarily to serve as a polemic against much of modern philosophy, with the latter being promoted by the liberal Scepticus. I understand that writing should (ideally) entertain, but if anyone suggests that he/she reads Immanuel Kant's writings(e.g., Critique of Pure Reason) for entertainment, I will have serious doubts about that person's honesty. That book contains some awesomely deep discussions of very difficult philosophical questions, but it's notoriously dry and difficult to decipher.

My primary reason for creating a dialogue is that it seems like a fairly effective way of presenting philosophical problems in a point-counterpoint, pro-and-con fashion, where the liberal philosopher can find some of his/her ideas argued for (by Scepticus), and where the more conservative philosopher finds his/her views widely supported and argued for (by Studiosus) throughout the book. Entertainment, here, has lower priority than instruction, or challenges to and provocations of one's thinking.

By the way, I'm pleased that you read even enough of the dialogue to ask thoughtful questions. Most people would not persist even that far. So far as their conversation being "believable" is concerned, as you thought that it might not be, it's entirely believable from my own vantage point; however, I acknowledge that my tastes and interests are very far out of the mainstream.

You indicate agreement with both Studiosus and Scepticus. If you can pull off a feat like that with  success, then maybe you have the makings of a great philosopher. For the most part, the two professors simply attack philosophical issues from (largely) opposite sides of the fence. Of course, without understanding some about the philosophy of language, this segment of the book would likely be deemed incomprehensible by even the most brilliant intellect.

If you have anymore questions or comments, please feel free to address them to me.

[violet]

Hello, Joseph!

Interesting and thought-provoking. I would prefer to start with Chapter 1 as I know nothing of who these characters are. Any reason you gave us this particular piece?

Also, with the Latin names, and the "proper English" wording, things like "Suzie" stood out as modern, whereas the fomer feels old-fashioned, as it were.

I think this would flow a bit better if you could use the "said" tags vs. giving us the characters names and then a paragraph of dialogue. Because it feels a bit like they're talking AT each other, vs. talking TO each other, if that makes any sense.

Not sure if this helped or further confused you! Still, I'd prefer to start from the beginning, if possible.

[sbrown]

Chapter 1 was posted earlier so look for it further down.

[Josephphi235]

Hello, Joseph!

Interesting and thought-provoking. I would prefer to start with Chapter 1 as I know nothing of who these characters are. Any reason you gave us this particular piece?

Also, with the Latin names, and the "proper English" wording, things like "Suzie" stood out as modern, whereas the former feels old-fashioned, as it were.

I think this would flow a bit better if you could use the "said" tags vs. giving us the characters names and then a paragraph of dialogue. Because it feels a bit like they're talking AT each other, vs. talking TO each other, if that makes any sense.

Not sure if this helped or further confused you! Still, I'd prefer to start from the beginning, if possible.

Thanks for your very helpful suggestions. A friend had criticized my use of those old Latin names, and I agree fully with you that such names combined with some references in the dialogue to "Suzy", etc. seems incongruous.

I'm afraid the style in which it is written is a bit stiff. But in my writing, I was so focused on presenting the ideas, rather than presenting them engagingly, that I might turn off a lot of potential readers.

I'm thankful for any comments and suggestions, because this project of mine is due for some major overhauling -- or so it seems.

By the way, in case you've not already found my first 5 pages of the dialogue, they were given here in a post a few weeks ago. So, you might have to back up quite a way to locate them. If need be, I could resort to posting them again -- if that's not inappropriate.