Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!husc4!hadeishi
From: hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of language (was Re: Characterization)
Message-ID: <350@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 13:13:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.350
Posted: Wed Oct  8 13:13:38 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:28:20 EDT
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <337@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> <13207@kestrel.ARPA>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Organization: Harvard Science Center
Lines: 54
Summary: Just a simple point, doesn't require private language argument


In article <13207@kestrel.ARPA> ladkin@kestrel.arpa (Peter Ladkin) writes:
>In article <337@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>, hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>> [..]	Language in itself contains no meaning; it requires
>> at least two people with common experiences before the symbols
>> can be said to have meaning. [...]
>
>Although this statement is not central to your point as I read it,
>I should point out that it is highly contentious.
>
>Since you mention the private language argument (if there is just one),
>I assume you take it to be valid. Could you show us your version of
>the argument in more detail, please?

	My simple point was that, for example, a language created by
some intelligent creatures who have all died out would become a
"meaningless" set of symbols (assuming that language consists of
strings of symbols or sommething of that nature.)  If humans were to
try to interpret that language, they would only have the barest chance
if there were some way to associate their symbols with our own
human experiences (i.e., if the language were pictoral, we could
associate their symbols with our own conception of the relationship
between our visual world and the objective world.)  However, if these
creatures' experiences and modes of expression differed too greatly
from our own, we would have no points of reference and therefore would
not be able to decipher the language.

	My point here being that the symbols in themselves are not
identical with their meanings.  That is the string of letters (or
pattern of dots on your CRT) corresponding to the word "symbol"
is in itself different from the idea or fuzzy area of idea behind
this word.  (Here I perhaps differ from the behaviorist interpretations
of Wittgenstein in that I find it perfectly sound to talk about the
"ideas" or "concepts" in some sense "behind" or "interior" to
a person's language.  This is because, again, I feel that it is
not necessary nor is it desirable to require precise meanings for
words.)

	By this I mean to emphasize the distinction between thought and
language.  It has been assumed implicitly by many that language and
thought were either inseperable or so closely related that it makes
no difference.  However, my contention is that they are quite independent
(although they interact very closely) and that language in itself
should be rigorously separated from meaning and also from the continuous
and subtle nature of life experience.

				-Mitsu

(P.S. I will concede that a language in my view could be
said to have meaning if only one person associated meaning with it.
However, such a language would have no meaning in the context of
communication, which is to me the central fact of language: the
power and the limitation of language can be discerned only from
analyzing its role in communication.)