June 1, 2006
06.01.06
Being and Time, H43: “In determining itself as an entity, Dasein always does so in the light of a possibility which it is itself and which, in its very Being, it somehow understands. This is the formal meaning of Dasein’s existential constitution. But this tells us that if we are to interpret this entity ontologically, the problematic of its Being must be developed from the existentiality of its existence. This cannot mean, however, that “Dasein” is to be construed in terms of some concrete possible idea of existence.” [bedeutung, sinn, meinen, heißen, besagen, sagen]
Does this puzzle concerning the meaning of meaning exist only in English?
What is worth noting is that, in English, the same word - meaning - is being employed in two different ways when Heidegger speaks of the “formal meaning of Dasein’s existential constitution” as opposed to “this cannot mean... that ‘Dasein’ is to be construed in terms of some concrete possible idea of existence.”
The related German terms that I listed above suggests that, in German, there is a relationship between speaking, naming, signifying, and meaning. I believe that these relationships are also present in English. But what are these relationships?
Heraclitus says: “The lord whose oracle is in Delphi neither speaks nor conceals but gives a sign.”
A word is not a sign. When I speak of a word having meaning or being meaningful, I mean something different from when I speak of a sign having meaning or being meaningful.
It seems to me that a key difference is that a sign is in need of interpretation, whereas a word is not. (As long I am fluent in the language that is being spoken.)
What is a sign? When I think of signs, I think of stop signs, traffic signals, advertisements, sign language, gestures, arrows, anthropology, rituals, etc. A sing can be something given, like by Oracle of Delphi or by God (re: Levinas, “The Trace of the Other”) and is often something that is in need of interpretation. A sign points to something else, in other words, a sign signifies the signified.
The use and interpretation of signs is dependant upon a pre-existing language. A system signs has structure - it derives its meaning - from something outside of itself, and that something is language. But language is self-sufficing; there is no meta-language that gives language its meaning.
Morse Code, sign language, and analog are all examples of systems of signs. English and German are languages. (But then what of Latin or Greek? There is a reason why we call them dead languages.)
A language cannot be fabricated. It is organic.
Being and Time, H43: “In determining itself as an entity, Dasein always does so in the light of a possibility which it is itself and which, in its very Being, it somehow understands. This is the formal meaning of Dasein’s existential constitution. But this tells us that if we are to interpret this entity ontologically, the problematic of its Being must be developed from the existentiality of its existence. This cannot mean, however, that “Dasein” is to be construed in terms of some concrete possible idea of existence.” [bedeutung, sinn, meinen, heißen, besagen, sagen]
Does this puzzle concerning the meaning of meaning exist only in English?
What is worth noting is that, in English, the same word - meaning - is being employed in two different ways when Heidegger speaks of the “formal meaning of Dasein’s existential constitution” as opposed to “this cannot mean... that ‘Dasein’ is to be construed in terms of some concrete possible idea of existence.”
The related German terms that I listed above suggests that, in German, there is a relationship between speaking, naming, signifying, and meaning. I believe that these relationships are also present in English. But what are these relationships?
Heraclitus says: “The lord whose oracle is in Delphi neither speaks nor conceals but gives a sign.”
A word is not a sign. When I speak of a word having meaning or being meaningful, I mean something different from when I speak of a sign having meaning or being meaningful.
It seems to me that a key difference is that a sign is in need of interpretation, whereas a word is not. (As long I am fluent in the language that is being spoken.)
What is a sign? When I think of signs, I think of stop signs, traffic signals, advertisements, sign language, gestures, arrows, anthropology, rituals, etc. A sing can be something given, like by Oracle of Delphi or by God (re: Levinas, “The Trace of the Other”) and is often something that is in need of interpretation. A sign points to something else, in other words, a sign signifies the signified.
The use and interpretation of signs is dependant upon a pre-existing language. A system signs has structure - it derives its meaning - from something outside of itself, and that something is language. But language is self-sufficing; there is no meta-language that gives language its meaning.
Morse Code, sign language, and analog are all examples of systems of signs. English and German are languages. (But then what of Latin or Greek? There is a reason why we call them dead languages.)
A language cannot be fabricated. It is organic.
posted by Joel | 4:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home