June 15, 2006
06.15.06
How can anyone claim to have a theory of meaning when the word “meaning” has so many meanings?
For example: “The game tomorrow has no meaning.” - Which means that it has no (practical) purposes. And when I say something like, “Life has no meaning,” then the meaning of the word “meaning” is different, albeit related. Again, it is as if the same piece is making a different move in the game, or a hammer is being used to remove a nail where before we were pounding the nail into the ground.
On occassion, we make the mistake of believing that a sentence states a physical or metaphysial law or truth when in fact we are merely stating a grammatical rule. (We believe that because the hammer was used once to hammer the nail, that therefore that is its only possible function.) This, I think, is a big part of what Austin is trying to say.
For example: “One cannot perceive the same object from two places at the same time.” But what if I am in a room with a table and a mirror? In what situations - in what kind of language-game - do these kinds of sentences make sense? (Have meaning?) And how am I to know the criteria to use in order to establish this?
Something about this discussion makes me feel like I am stretching the rules of grammar to fit my needs. They are elastic.
How can anyone claim to have a theory of meaning when the word “meaning” has so many meanings?
For example: “The game tomorrow has no meaning.” - Which means that it has no (practical) purposes. And when I say something like, “Life has no meaning,” then the meaning of the word “meaning” is different, albeit related. Again, it is as if the same piece is making a different move in the game, or a hammer is being used to remove a nail where before we were pounding the nail into the ground.
On occassion, we make the mistake of believing that a sentence states a physical or metaphysial law or truth when in fact we are merely stating a grammatical rule. (We believe that because the hammer was used once to hammer the nail, that therefore that is its only possible function.) This, I think, is a big part of what Austin is trying to say.
For example: “One cannot perceive the same object from two places at the same time.” But what if I am in a room with a table and a mirror? In what situations - in what kind of language-game - do these kinds of sentences make sense? (Have meaning?) And how am I to know the criteria to use in order to establish this?
Something about this discussion makes me feel like I am stretching the rules of grammar to fit my needs. They are elastic.
posted by Joel | 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home