Meaning Paradox
To the extent I'm aware, Philosophy is acutely concerned about meaning. Without definitions being crisp and clear progress in thought would be impossible. One could say that a major setback in some philosophical branches is the lack of good definitions.
It's advised that defining, giving meaning to words, follow some accepted guidelines, some of which are:
1. Focus on the essentials
2. Be clear - avoid ambiguity, vagueness, metaphor, obscurity
3. Don't define in negatives when it's possible to be positive
4. Don't make definitions too broad or too narrow
5. Avoid circularity
Given we have to meet the criteria of a good definition above,
What is the definition of ''definition''? Or
What is the meaning of ''meaning''?
I'm no linguist but the question seems problematic, since any attempt to define ''definition'' violates criteria 4 i.e. avoid circularity.
How does philosophy solve this problem?
This is a paradox because we have to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning.
It's advised that defining, giving meaning to words, follow some accepted guidelines, some of which are:
1. Focus on the essentials
2. Be clear - avoid ambiguity, vagueness, metaphor, obscurity
3. Don't define in negatives when it's possible to be positive
4. Don't make definitions too broad or too narrow
5. Avoid circularity
Given we have to meet the criteria of a good definition above,
What is the definition of ''definition''? Or
What is the meaning of ''meaning''?
I'm no linguist but the question seems problematic, since any attempt to define ''definition'' violates criteria 4 i.e. avoid circularity.
How does philosophy solve this problem?
This is a paradox because we have to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning.
Comments (60)
1. While defining a word we use the structure ''x means y'' where x is the definiendum and y is the definiens
2. To understand 1, we have to know the meaning of ''means''.
3. So, as per the structure given in 1, we have to say: ''means'' means
3 is obviously impossible because we're using a word, ''means'', without knowing its meaning.
In your case, 'means' is a predicate. It's like other general predicates such as 'walk', 'have', 'hit', and so on. 'x means y' can be understood as ''x means y' is a two-place predicates'. Or 'x and y are in relation of 'means''. If you don't have a problem of 'x hits y', then you can accept easily 'x means y'.
You have to know what knowing is first.
Quoting TheMadFool
How do you know that?
Hej! No circularity! ;)
(I'm aware I'm already presupposing on a lot of metaphysical issues here, I'll consider myself a pragmatist)
So to know what something means is to know what something is about.
Here's what I think.
I don't know the history of language and how it evolved but to make an educated guess...
I think language evolved in very basic terms and that, to me, means giving names to physical objects like water, wind, sun, etc. In this basic sense of ''meaning'' is the idea of equality. People were simply ''naming'' things. From there, we can take a step forward and say ''definitions'' are, in essence, naming albeit in a sophisticated manner.
What say you?
What's your theory then?
How is it a paradox? Even though our attempts to describe the meaning of "meaning" may be circular, this isn't how we first learn a language. Definitions only work if we already know the meaning of certain words, and so we must learn the meaning of these initial words another way.
[B]X means Y[/b] establishes an equality for the simple reason that, in a sentence, substituting one word with its definition shouldn't change the meaning of the sentence e.g.
1) There was ice on the road
2) There was frozen water on the road
So, definition is a means of stipulating an equality between words/phrases. This is what I mean.
In this reading we can make sense of ''means'' as establishing/attempting to establish an equality.
To know the meaning of any word, first we must know the meaning of ''meaning'' and that can't be done without resorting to a circular definition. Try it:
The meaning of ''meaning'' is
Did you even read what I wrote? I'll repeat it for you:
Even though our attempts to describe the meaning of "meaning" may be circular, this isn't how we first learn a language. Definitions only work if we already know the meaning of certain words, and so we must learn the meaning of these initial words another way.
I'm no linguist but allow me to hazard a guess...
It all began with naming physical objects, e.g. the sound wa-ter is the name of the stuff one drinks, etc. In naming we draw an equality between the sound/word and the object it refers to. Therefrom it's relatively easy to understand the meaning of ''meaning''. It's simply an equivalence and we may say, when defining, such and such is such and such.
Ok. Do you agree that ''means'' is an equality claim, as in x means y can also be expressed as x = y. Is meaning just another way of naming?
God is defined as an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being.
1) Pray to God
2) Pray to the omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being
Do you see any difference between 1 and 2?
No
That's because God = omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being. See?
Also synonyms are definitions.
How so?
See here
Accept that everything everything is in flux and that any symbolic meaning is a practical, albeit incomplete tool, for communication. It has limits and is bound to change. The paradox arises out if the neverending desire for truth where there isn't any.
Synonyms are defined as 'linguistic expressions defined as the same thing'. Definitions are defined as 'sentences that give meanings to linguistic expressions'. Some synonyms are established by definitions. However, definitions are not established by synonyms. They are two distinct concepts.
I see. I was using ''meaning'' and ''definition'' as synonyms. Apparently, there's a significant difference. Sorry for sending you offtrack. Anyway, learned something. Thanks.
Quoting Rich
Sounds Zen! Can you descend and answer the question at my level? Thanks
When someone attempts to make such arbitrary descriptions universal and permanent, that when problems arise.
What's your understanding of definition?
Anyway, I don't see how, in the world you describe, the paradox is solved. You still need to know the meaning of ''meaning''.
There is no paradox, just lots and lots disagreements.
Still, there are words which need to have a fixed meaning and ''meaning'' is one of them. So, the paradox of having to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before you can define is still unsolved.
Are you referring to the Plato's Cave? How does that affect the paradox of meaning?
Possibly more fixed than others but almost all have multiple possibilities with new possibilities (slang terms) being created all the time. Impermanence.
I don‘t know, perhaps if I could leave the cave, I‘ve could tell you. Oh wait that is impossible!
(Refering to Plato‘s Cave)
If you know how I mean.
Definitions are statements expressing the essential nature of something.
Meaning, according to Paul Grice, has two kinds - natural and non-natural. Natural meaning has to do with cause and effect (these spots mean measles), while the non-natural kind has to do with a speaker's intention in communicating something to a listener (What I mean to say is...).
Quoting StreetlightXWhen I see a new word being used, I still don't get the meaning. I end up referencing the dictionary to know what the word means.
Oh dear, it must be hard to have to live like that.
What did I mean by "usufruct"? Did you already know what the word means (you've heard or seen it used before)? If so, I can probably find another that you have never heard used before in which you should know what it means simply by it's use.
I see. So, you think it's an impossible task to define ''meaning''. That means the paradox has no solution. Agree?
(Y)
@StreetlightX(Y)
The paradox is still unsolved.
1) How do we define ''definition''?
2) What is the meaning of ''meaning''?
Any attempt to answer the above questions would proceed as follows:
1. The definition of ''definition'' is...
That's a circularity that generates a paradox: we have to define ''definition'' but to do so we need to know the definition of ''definition''.
2. The meaning of ''meaning'' is...
That too is circular and generates the paradox of having to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning.
I just don't see a paradox. I just provided the definition of "definition", without using the word, "definition" in the definition.
I like that definition. Thanks(Y)
No, not realy.
I writed that it is impossible for me to leave Plato‘s Cave, because I have never been there.( I know I did not defined it in my previous comment, but I did it now)
It is also impossible for You to leave the cave because You are in its deepest room trying to figure out the meaning of the shadows.
Notice how meaning is so elusive on this forum (even for simple things like what is meaning?) and how difficult it is to communicate - but we do the best we can.
[Quote]Anyway, I don't see how, in the world you describe, the paradox is solved. You still need to know the meaning of ''meaning''.[/quote]
The paradox isn't solved because there isn't any, unless one subscribes to the concept of fixed meaning that somehow has to be discovered. Giving meaning is a process of observation and feeling, and it is constantly changing. Then there is the process of trying to convey that meaning, at which time definitions are handy but still fluid.
'What do you mean?', in response to a statement that appeared to be a request or instruction, means 'I don't understand what you want me to do. Can you please explain more clearly?'
On the other hand, in response to a statement that sounded like a proposition, made in a discussion or argument, it means something like
'I didn't understand that point you just made. Can you please rephrase it to make it more likely that I can understand it?'
Then there's one of my favourites:
'I mean ....'
which means - 'I'm not confident that what I just said was intellligible, so I'll try to rephrase it to see if I can make it any more intelligible'.
In short, words don't usually have meaning. It is sentences that have meaning. And sometimes even a sentence isn't enough. One needs a whole paragraph to acquire a meaning.
The German-English dictionary that's loaded on my Kindle is very good like that. For most words it doesn't even attempt to define them in isolation. Rather, it gives several different sentences showing the different ways it can be used, and explains the meaning of each sentence.