What problems are still unsolved in the philosophy of language?
Do abstract objects exist? If abstract objects exist, are propositions abstract objects? If not, what are there dimensions? If abstract objects exist, can they be physically contained within space, or must we then concede to the existence of a non-spatial realm which is transcendent of space?
Why must we understand language to understanding being? If language points to meaning, and being has meaning (in itself), is not language reducible to meaning and therefore being and not to words? What is meaning and how does it relate to the mind and world?
Why must one understand the relationships between subjects and predicates to understand the essence of propositions when propositions merely represent actually existing entities or relations between actually existing entities and their meaning is to be found in the whole and not its parts?
Are the “non-existent” entities such as contradictions that words denote actually existent entities, albeit in some abstract sense of the word? Meaning that all words denote existent entities?
What are some other problems in the philosophy of language that I am missing here?
Why must we understand language to understanding being? If language points to meaning, and being has meaning (in itself), is not language reducible to meaning and therefore being and not to words? What is meaning and how does it relate to the mind and world?
Why must one understand the relationships between subjects and predicates to understand the essence of propositions when propositions merely represent actually existing entities or relations between actually existing entities and their meaning is to be found in the whole and not its parts?
Are the “non-existent” entities such as contradictions that words denote actually existent entities, albeit in some abstract sense of the word? Meaning that all words denote existent entities?
What are some other problems in the philosophy of language that I am missing here?
Comments (16)
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Words don't denote/refer. People do.
The person uses the word to denote an entity. The person refers uses the word as an intermediary symbol to denote the thing. You are right, but both are true.
In manifest (everyday, ordinary) reality, we can refer to things. But the word need not stand in for an object in the world. It could, but it's not necessary.
Denoting is one of the many things we do with words. If you agree with that, then there's no disagreement here.
Ah good. :)
As for your other questions, I suspect "meaning" is not a linguistic "only" issue.
In my case at least, when I speak of meaning "only" using language, I'd say that when I ask someone "what do you mean?", I'm simply trying to get the person to say to state the point in a different manner, so that I can get clearer on the goal or point of the message.
But of course, as soon as we ask questions like "what does that mean" or "does this have any meaning", we are asking questions that are more multifaceted than linguistics, I think.
You might need a broader account of meaning.
language doesnt exist
Is this really an unsolved mystery in philosophy? I know most philosophers reject postmodernism on grounds of taste, but structuralism is less controversial surely? Bootstrap mysteries...
Structuralism is Old Testament to Postmodernism's New...
Sorry. :joke:
What is your definition of "exist"?
True but trivial. Adjectives and verbs would be useless without nouns. To think that verbs and adjectives can exist on their own, without a reference to the nouns they are associated with is a mistake. Don't let the spaces between words fool you into thinking that each word could have a meaningful existence on its own. Spaces between words mark the ending and beginning of words, not necessarily the thing being talked about.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Do abstract objects have causal power? If so, they exist. To measure the dimensions, compare the size of the object to other objects. That is how we measure the size of anything - by comparing it to other objects with similar properties (like length, weight and duration). Are words any more abstract than the ink and paper they are composed of?
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Quoting Manuel
Meaning is the relationship between causes and their effects. Mind is as much a cause of things in the world as it is an effect of prior causes in the world. Words are scribbles on a page that were caused by some mind's intent to communicate. By reading words on a page (the effect) you can get at the cause - the idea that the writer intended to communicate. But humans are not necessary to establish this relationship between causes and their effects, or to point to causes with effects. Causes and effects do this as part of their very nature. The tree rings in a tree stump were not made by humans, but point to the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year. No humans are necessary for tree rings to point at the age of the tree, but humans are necessary to know that tree rings point at the age of the tree to be able to use tree rings to know the age of some tree.
Abstract objects do exist, but only in the mind and language, not in the real world space as tangible objects.
Just because you know a word such as "God", doesn't mean that it exists in space as the real object. Of course it depends on what you mean by "God". If you define a willow tree in your garden as "God", yes it does exist, but that would be your own private world, not the world that the other rest of human population believes as world.
No, language cannot be reduced to the beings. It represents the beings. You use the language to REFER to the beings. Words refer to the objects. Sentences refer to the facts and situations in the world.
Meanings are just cultural and historical contracts on the words. I can make my own private language with a few made up words with my own meanings, and agree to use the language with the new meanings only amongst a group of a few people, and it will work well although limited at first. In a few years of time, the words will increase, as we add more new words and the meanings to it, and might cover the all the objects in the world.
There is a basic form that can account for many specific cases in philosophy which is:
BRAIN( mental content ), such as,
BRAIN( information )
BRAIN( thought )
BRAIN( ideas )
BRAIN( mathematics )
BRAIN( language )
BRAIN( abstract objects )
BRAIN( propositions )
BRAIN( philosophy )
And on and on, it's a relation that is universal and irreducible so will always be in this two part form.
Could any of this mental content exist without a BRAIN? no.
Do abstract objects exist? yes, in this two part form.
Does mental content have mass or dimensions? no, but is inseparable from the BRAIN that contains it so it does have a physical location. So the non-spatial realm isn't proven or required.
Edit: And the question I missed is both abstract objects and propositions are mental content.