May 4, 2006
05.04.06
The mistake here is to believe that the meaning of a sentence exists outside of the sentence.
When we ask, “What is the meaning of the sentence, “I believe it is raining outside?”, it is tempting to assert that what we are asking for is something other than the sentence itself. We are led into believing this when we think of a few, particular phrases that are used in English, such “I said it, but I didn’t mean it,” “That’s not what I meant to say,” or “You’re not getting my meaning.” It seems obvious, when we look at these sentences, that there is what is said, on the one hand, and there is what is meant on the other.
I have been led to believe that what I know, I also believe.
There seems to be a relationship between Wittgenstein’s ostensive definition and the semiotics, in so far as the assumed relationship between a word and an object is the same as the assumed relationship between the sign and the signified - that relationship being, of course, meaning.
But thinking in this way eventually leads to certain irreconcilable philosophical problems.
Ask yourself: When, or on what grounds, is language in need of interpretation?
The mistake here is to believe that the meaning of a sentence exists outside of the sentence.
When we ask, “What is the meaning of the sentence, “I believe it is raining outside?”, it is tempting to assert that what we are asking for is something other than the sentence itself. We are led into believing this when we think of a few, particular phrases that are used in English, such “I said it, but I didn’t mean it,” “That’s not what I meant to say,” or “You’re not getting my meaning.” It seems obvious, when we look at these sentences, that there is what is said, on the one hand, and there is what is meant on the other.
I have been led to believe that what I know, I also believe.
There seems to be a relationship between Wittgenstein’s ostensive definition and the semiotics, in so far as the assumed relationship between a word and an object is the same as the assumed relationship between the sign and the signified - that relationship being, of course, meaning.
But thinking in this way eventually leads to certain irreconcilable philosophical problems.
Ask yourself: When, or on what grounds, is language in need of interpretation?
posted by Joel | 4:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home