Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein)
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Again, no. To say that one is reasonably certain is not to say that one is absolutely certain. Certainty is a threshold concept, not an absolute concept. Absolute certainty is a philosophical chimera that ultimately reflects a desire to know as God knows rather than to know as God's creature.
Again, you seem to forget that use does not here merely mean immediate use but the word's place in relation to other words.
If I say "bring me the block" you have no idea what the word "block" means unless you know the context. A block of wood? Stone? Cheese? A block for use in rigging (as in the block and tackle)? The starting block? The chopping block?
I would reference Peter Skagestad, “Peirce’s Semeiotic Model of the Mind,” in The Caambridge Companion to Charles Sanders Peirce as well as the philosophical interlude in Walker Percy's Lost in the Cosmos as well as his collection of essays The Message in the Bottle. In many respects I am appropriating Peirce's semiotic by way of Percy's reinterpretations and improvements.
Their epistemology modifies the traditional realist system. It tends to justify any religious experience.
One would have to suppose his reason was absolute in order to think this negation was warranted. I said, "within the confines of your reason." As far as you are concerned, you are not erring. I did not say, as far as anyone else was concerned. Once you grant that you operate on the assumption that you do not err you are functioning as a realist whether you like to admit it or not.
That is, in relation to other words that mean something. It is an inescapable concept. Reality requires meaning in order to be real. Biblical ontology does not lie. God created things, set them in their places, and circumscribed their uses. For language to be real it must reflect this reality.
You have defined the word "block" within a limited range of ... wait for it ... MEANING. You can't avoid it.
Last edited:
Correct, but I am certainly open to contrary arguments.
Correct. Creation has a telos.
So what is the telos of language?
I have never denied the existence of meaning. I have simply averred that meaning, from a linguistic standpoint, is a function of use within a language and within a particular context. This doesn't mean that it isn't real. Of course it's real.
You defined your "certainty" as "reasonable;" hence you are not actually open to "contrary" arguments, for they would be contrary to what is reasonable; you are only open to "reasonable" arguments. Inescapable realism again!
That which is the goal of its "ontos."
You call meaning a "function." The realist calls it a "foundation." Without an IS, there is no DOES.
Reasonability means that one is open to reasoned arguments to the contrary. It is a disposition to accept reasoned arguments to the contrary. I have not encountered such. If you can convince me, I will happily change my view. I have done so in the past and will most likely do so in the future with other beliefs.
Which is? You've argued here that reality depends on meaning, implying that reality is contingent upon purpose. Essence precedes existence.
But under a teleological ontology, there is no IS without a purpose. Essence precedes existence.
I'm not chiming in, because I'm not competent to do so; just reading and hoping something vital sticks with me.
But as I understand things (I think more from Rev. Winzer's perspective), not only does essence precede existence; but ethics (ought) precedes essence at the level of the creation. If so, would this not make a Christian worldview quite the opposite of almost any purely rationally constructed system? (ala Descartes)
I really just want to know if such an observation "fits" anywhere in this discussion. Please, continue...
But as I understand things (I think more from Rev. Winzer's perspective), not only does essence precede existence; but ethics (ought) precedes essence at the level of the creation. If so, would this not make a Christian worldview quite the opposite of almost any purely rationally constructed system? (ala Descartes)
I really just want to know if such an observation "fits" anywhere in this discussion. Please, continue...
If Christian ethics means simply following the will of God, then yes. However, as God's will works itself out in creation, we find that the purposes of creation reveal the will of God. God speaks first and meaning is actualized.
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've found this exchange interesting, although maybe there is some talking past each other (or maybe not). It seems to me that Rev. Winzer wants the meanings of words to refer or correspond to objective realities, while Phillip wants to emphasize that meaning is based on use. No doubt one of the many uses of words is to refer to objective realities in the world. Many times, however, we use words with the intention or for the use of bringing about some desired effect. For instance, "Honey, the trash is getting full" probably means take out the trash, given the context and use of that statement. It probably doesn't mean, or at least doesn't mean exclusively, there is some trashcan here that is very full (and I just thought I'd let you know). By claiming that use determines meaning, it seems to me that Phillip wants to embrace the diverse ways that we employ language; he doesn't want to deny the fact that we often use language to refer to objective realities in the world around us.
At least that's what I've taken away. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm not seeing the conflict really between realism and Phillip's claim.
At least that's what I've taken away. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm not seeing the conflict really between realism and Phillip's claim.
Last edited:
"Reasonable" means you are already committed to certain things which cannot be contradicted. The very existence of "reason" in "reasonable" presupposes numerous basic facts which are not open to contrary arguments.
The fact you argue for the "rightness" of your belief demonstrates to all and sundry that you are operating on the assumption that you are not in error. Your actions contradict your "fallibilism." It is self-refuting.
What it IS should not matter to you. The fact you ask "Which is?" demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that you require meaning in order to have an use. Once again, your own procedure refutes you.
A teleological ontology makes as much sense as a square circle.
Only insofar as one has to determine whether ethics is deontological or teleological. The Christian tradition has committed itself to the former with its view of natural law and the ten commandments.
I would say that the effect is "always" the intended use of words. But my use of a thing and the thing itself are not the same.
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
So you would want to say that these words already have their meaning, but they are being used in such a way to bring about a desired effect? The meaning of words precedes their use, rather than vis versa. Am I evaluating your position fairly? Is that last statement the fundamental dispute between you and Phillip?
Yes, and yes. The meaning of words already determines the way they can be used. Even when language is used creatively it has to have some meaningful base from which to operate, and that creation does not sever its rational connection with its meaningful base. For the development of a word to have meaning it must be the development of something meaningful.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
If you mean that I am operating with certain methodological assumptions then yes.
I hold that the telos precedes the ontos. To tell me what a thing is for is to tell me what it is. If I ask, "what is that thing?" and you say "a knife" you have given me an essence, not the existence. The host of uses inherent in the concept "knife" is what you have told me. If you instead replied "a collection of metallic atoms" then you have given me the bare ontos but nothing really interesting.
Would the world exist apart from Divine purpose?
The answer to this question is "yes." Deontology and teleology are not mutually exclusive.
Would you then say that miscommunication is impossible? Or that words are always persuasive? If I say "go take out the trash" to a roommate and he refuses to do so, that seems to contradict this. The perlocutionary aspect of my speech-act may not necessarily match my illocution.
But the only way that the meaning can be understood is if the words are used. A word is a mere sign--the meaning is that which it signifies, and its signification depends on how we perceive the word in the language as a whole.
Consider the case of one of the few people who has been able to tell us how, exactly a person learns language: Helen Keller. Before she learned to use language, Helen suffered a debilitating illness that robbed her of hearing and of sight. Her parents eventually brought in a teacher who attempted to get through to her. Helen described the moment when her teacher brought her into the wellhouse:
The bare word has no meaning without context (in this case, the context being water flowing over the other hand). Adam could not name the animals unless he had been talking to God first. You cannot understand language without being a language-user in some minimal sense.
It is more than method and it is more than assumptions. If it is "reason," it is a must-have. You can't operate without it.
No, but it would exist without your purpose. The problem with your view is that man has to transcend himself and become a self-existent being in order to imitate God.
And here you require yourself to play God with the consequences of your actions.
People make mistakes, so failing to communicate is always a possibility.
The person has to have an understanding of the meaning of the words in order to use them intelligibly.
I will simply refer to John Frame's response to "reformed epistemology" in Five Views of Apologetics. "But surely Christian faith is not defeasible in this sense. It is sure, certain. We are not merely permitted to believe in God until we are persuaded otherwise; rather, we are obligated to believe in him."
Any "defeaters" of basic beliefs would defeat the possibility of defeating anything since the basic beliefs are necessary.
But that's just my point. Reality is teleological because God created it with a telos. Man does not have to transcend himself here because he is created in the image of a creator as a sub-creator and a maker of meaning. What was the first task that God gave man? Naming things--ordering reality under Divine sovereignty.
On all sides. People may have disingenuous intent, seeking to communicate falsehoods, making empty promises, etc. And a failure to communicate may not always be due to a mistake on the part of a speaker.
And to understand their meaning, one has to already be a competent user. To understand the meaning of your words I have to be capable of using them myself, at least in principle. I have to make that connection between the marks on the screen, or the sounds you are making, and the concepts that you are attempting to communicate. And to do that, I have to already be a competent interpreter.
In order to read music, I must be capable of carrying a tune on some instrument, or at least with my voice. Apart from the capability for music, notes on a page have no meaning. They only have a meaning if they can be used. They can have no meaning for a person born deaf, whereas Beethoven could create them even after losing his hearing.
There is no sub-"creation." Man does not give being to things. Man is himself a creature. You are deifying man with naive concepts you have not thought through to their logical conclusions.
A competent user of WHAT? Every time we come back to IS and WHAT. You simply dodge the concept of the THING being used, and you have to do this in order to avoid the REALISM that the THING must have MEANING as an entity in itself.
Language. A competent user of language. A thing does not have meaning as an entity in itself apart from a purpose. Meaning is given to it by a mind and will which orders it. And language is the tool of human communities in organizing reality, not simply physical reality, but cultural reality. Language is simply the ability to create culture.
In that sense, words have meaning in the sense that a hammer has meaning. A hammer has meaning because it is the product of a culture that uses nails and needs a means by which to drive them. Apart from this purpose, a hammer would be a meaningless object. Similarly, words mean what they mean only in relation to a whole language and way of life.
I did not say that man gives being to things, I said that man gives meaning to things. I am using the term "sub-creation" in Tolkien's sense (though I am broadening it somewhat). But of course the fall has meant that we no longer recognize the Divine order, and so sub-creation becomes, yes, the desire to deify ourselves rather than to recognize the Divine will over us. We create our own meaning, seeing objects in space without meaning and without purpose, and so we attempt to remake the world in our image rather than God's. But the reality is that we simply get further lost in the cosmos.
Language means something then.
A competent user of language means something then.
Of course it does. If it did not exist it could not fulfil any purpose.
The mind searches out its meaning.
Creation in Christian theology means giving being to things. If you create meaning, however, you obviously have god-like powers to make "creation" mean whatever you please.
No, the purpose is the reason for its existence. God wouldn't have made it for no reason. If there is a hammer, someone must have purposed to drive nails. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the hammer.
Only if it already has a purpose for which it was created in the first place.
Yes, and I am using it in a much less technical sense. I am using creation in the sense that Tolkien was the creator of Middle-Earth or Leonardo was the creator of Mona Lisa or the Queen creates a knight.
Well we are created in the image of God, so there must be some sense in which our abilities are analogous to God's.
Nicholas Perella
Puritan Board Freshman
There is a shift in the "who" is doing the act at least in this particular part of the discussion.
For instance, in trying to follow this starting here:
The "who" is a person (man).
Pastor Winzer was talking about a "person" (man) as seen above. Philip you responded with a "one" (who is a competent user). Who is "one" here?
I followed this particular thought in the discussion as follows. Pastor Winzer quoted Philip's response that I quote above and addresses it below:
My question moves along. Who is "one"? Philip when you responded to Pastor Winzer you used the word "one" in response to his talking about a "person" (man).
Pastor Winzer is talking about a "person" (man) who is a "competent user".
Philip you are saying the "one" is a competent user of language, and meaning is not separate from "purpose". Here you seem to be saying that the "one" are humans or "human communities".
Please be patient with me. It goes on.
Pastor Winzer is talking about a "person" (man) who would fulfill the purpose, maybe?
Philip so far you have defined the "one" in this particular part of the discussion as a human or "human communities".
But lastly.
Now the discussion seemingly has jumped to man and God.
Pastor Winzer is talking about the purpose which I think has to do with being a competent user of language, so, purpose is emphasized in the 'competence'? The person is fulfilling a purpose which is in being a competent user of language.
Yet Philip you are talking about the purpose of being a competent user of language not in man's doing of this competent act, but in God doing this purpose. Is God doing this competent purpose in man? Or is it man doing the competent act of using language?
There was a switch in "who" is doing the act somewhere along the way in this particular part of the discussion.
For instance, in trying to follow this starting here:
The "who" is a person (man).
Pastor Winzer was talking about a "person" (man) as seen above. Philip you responded with a "one" (who is a competent user). Who is "one" here?
I followed this particular thought in the discussion as follows. Pastor Winzer quoted Philip's response that I quote above and addresses it below:
My question moves along. Who is "one"? Philip when you responded to Pastor Winzer you used the word "one" in response to his talking about a "person" (man).
Pastor Winzer is talking about a "person" (man) who is a "competent user".
Philip you are saying the "one" is a competent user of language, and meaning is not separate from "purpose". Here you seem to be saying that the "one" are humans or "human communities".
Please be patient with me. It goes on.
Pastor Winzer is talking about a "person" (man) who would fulfill the purpose, maybe?
Philip so far you have defined the "one" in this particular part of the discussion as a human or "human communities".
But lastly.
Now the discussion seemingly has jumped to man and God.
Pastor Winzer is talking about the purpose which I think has to do with being a competent user of language, so, purpose is emphasized in the 'competence'? The person is fulfilling a purpose which is in being a competent user of language.
Yet Philip you are talking about the purpose of being a competent user of language not in man's doing of this competent act, but in God doing this purpose. Is God doing this competent purpose in man? Or is it man doing the competent act of using language?
There was a switch in "who" is doing the act somewhere along the way in this particular part of the discussion.
I am saying that language is a communal activity such that language does not exist apart from a community and that a person cannot be said to know a language unless they are, in principle, capable of using it. The competent user of language is a person who is capable of doing various kinds of things with it. Meaning is not separate from purpose.
So when we ask about the meaning of life, for instance, we are really asking about the purpose of our existence, as per WSC Q1.
Yes. One of the ways in which humanity images God is in its capacity for purposing, and competently using language. However, as a reformed Christian I also hold that God does work out purposes in creation, including humanity.
Every time we come back to WHAT? WHAT is language? WHAT uses the language? WHAT has purpose? WHAT is creation? WHAT is man? Indeed, WHAT is God? Poor Philip can't answer because he is committed to saying meaning is in the USE of these things, not in the THINGS themselves. If a person thinks that the WHAT needs to be answered, that is a fair indication he is a realist and places meaning in the reality of THINGS. I have nothing more to say.
Language is that by which man communicates.
People do.
Meaning is in purpose. Meaning is in the essence of things.
This is a Kantian chimera which ignores the fact that God created the world with purposes in mind. The ding an sich is the essence, not the substance.
And the reality of things depends on the purpose of things. If men did not want to drive nails, there would be no hammers.
- Status
