Ancient Texts
Getting straight to the point, the contention is summed up by the following question:
Is a newly discovered and completely unfamiliar ancient text still meaningful?
First, let us suppose for now that it is possible for a newly discovered ancient text to still be meaningful, and further consider what that would take. At a bare minimum, the following common sense general criterion must hold good. First, the text would have to have already been meaningful, and second, the meaning of the text would have to persist through time despite it's users having long since perished.
Regarding the first requirement above, there is no doubt that the text was meaningful to the language users. I'll accept that that part of the criterion has been more than adequately satisfied without prejudice. That leaves the second condition. Has it also been satisfied? The following question, and what can be gleaned from it, deserves careful attention.
Can the meaning of any text persist through time?
Of course it can! That certainty is unshakeable, for it is based upon everyday events, and no event indicates otherwise. What would a denial even look like? How could one arguing that textual meaning cannot or does not persist through time make any sense of their own argument being rightly understood by another after it's expression? It is undeniable that the meaning of texts written in languages that are still in use persists through time. We use them during long periods of time; throughout our own lifetimes. This thread is a prima facie example. Tomorrow, it will still be meaningful. If that doesn't count as adequate reason to believe that the meaning of a text can persist through time then nothing else could.
However...
Is that alone adequate for concluding that the meaning of the ancient text has persisted through time as well?
Of course not! The two are not one in the same. The ancient text no longer has users. Current texts do. Current texts are still used, and that is precisely what grounds the certainty of answering in the affirmative when asked "Can the meaning of any text persist through time?" The use throughout time of current langauges is precisely the ground upon which we can certainly conclude that the meaning of a text can persist through time.
But... regarding the OP, all we can conclude is that the meaning of the ancient text persisted throughout the time period during it's use.
Is a newly discovered and completely unfamiliar ancient text still meaningful?
First, let us suppose for now that it is possible for a newly discovered ancient text to still be meaningful, and further consider what that would take. At a bare minimum, the following common sense general criterion must hold good. First, the text would have to have already been meaningful, and second, the meaning of the text would have to persist through time despite it's users having long since perished.
Regarding the first requirement above, there is no doubt that the text was meaningful to the language users. I'll accept that that part of the criterion has been more than adequately satisfied without prejudice. That leaves the second condition. Has it also been satisfied? The following question, and what can be gleaned from it, deserves careful attention.
Can the meaning of any text persist through time?
Of course it can! That certainty is unshakeable, for it is based upon everyday events, and no event indicates otherwise. What would a denial even look like? How could one arguing that textual meaning cannot or does not persist through time make any sense of their own argument being rightly understood by another after it's expression? It is undeniable that the meaning of texts written in languages that are still in use persists through time. We use them during long periods of time; throughout our own lifetimes. This thread is a prima facie example. Tomorrow, it will still be meaningful. If that doesn't count as adequate reason to believe that the meaning of a text can persist through time then nothing else could.
However...
Is that alone adequate for concluding that the meaning of the ancient text has persisted through time as well?
Of course not! The two are not one in the same. The ancient text no longer has users. Current texts do. Current texts are still used, and that is precisely what grounds the certainty of answering in the affirmative when asked "Can the meaning of any text persist through time?" The use throughout time of current langauges is precisely the ground upon which we can certainly conclude that the meaning of a text can persist through time.
But... regarding the OP, all we can conclude is that the meaning of the ancient text persisted throughout the time period during it's use.
Comments (151)
Is the meaning of written text existentially dependent upon it's use?
I take you to mean an ancient text in an unknown language that is as yet undeciphered.
In one sense it is meaningful: we know it means something, but we don't know what. We recognize it as language, that it had a role in a culture, and so on.
In another sense it is not meaningful: it's meaningless to us, it carries no meaning in practice to any language-using meaning-making creatures.
So asking if the meaning was lost when its culture disappeared or is somehow still contained in the stone tablet, waiting to be released again, is ambiguous. It's either, depending on how you're using the word "meaning".
What is the philosophical issue beyond this? Well, even with this ambiguity we can still say that meaning is always at least originally bound up in a context of social practices, or, if you prefer, is always at least originally located in individual minds. Which means that the question isn't an enlightening one, in that it doesn't do much to resolve that debate.
Or am I missing the issue?
Please explain this charge.
But hermeneutics also might require considerable knowledge of history, tradition, culture and even anthropology.
There’s an interesting case of the ‘mohenjo-daro script’ a.k.a. the Indus script:
So - it remains unknown if this is a script, let alone what the inscriptions mean. The same was true of Egyptian hieroglyphs until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.
I agree that a coherent answer will follow from one's notion of "meaning". Can one's notion of "meaning" be false, wrong, incomplete, and/or somehow otherwise (mis)conceived? I'm certain of it.
Something to consider...
All notions of "meaning" are meaningful despite the fact that many of them are incommensurate and/or incompatible with one another.
That could not be the case unless being meaningful did not depend upon our notion of "meaning".
Seems you may be missing the issue.
Quoting jamalrob
Rather, I'm questioning whether or not it is even able to be deciphered. Moreover, what that would take. I'm considering currently used languages, and what interpretation requires. I think that knowledge gleaned from such considerations is rightfully applicable to the OP.
In English, nouns are persons, places, or things...
"Meaning" is a noun. It is neither a person nor place. I'm not conflating concrete with abstract, nor do I. I reject the reification charge. It is misplaced.
That's just a pedagogical shortcut. For example, "nothingness" is a noun.
Definition:
A noun is a member of a syntactic class
that includes words which refer to people, places, things, ideas, or concepts
whose members may act as any of the following: subjects of the verb, objects of the verb, indirect object of the verb, or object of a preposition (or postposition), and
most of whose members have inherently determined grammatical gender (in languages which inflect for gender).
[My bolding]
https://glossary.sil.org/term/noun
Meaning falls in the bolded classes.
: any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept
Definition of concept (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
What's the point?
I've no issue with any of this. I stand by everything I've argued thus far.
What does it mean for a text to have users? The user of a text may not be the same thing as a reader of the text. There are plenty of texts that I have read and in so far as I have understood them they have meaning but once I have read them I might put them aside and never think about them again. Have I used them? Were they useful?
There may be, on the other hand, texts that have been lost and thus not read or "used" for thousands of years. If such a text were found it might be of great interest depending on the author or time at which it was written. It might prove to be extremely useful to those with an interest since it fills in gaps or gives a new perspective on the subject.
People using the language the text is written in.
Reading presupposes understanding. Understanding presupposes use. One cannot possibly understand the meaning of a text without using it. One cannot possibly read a text without already understanding the language it is written in.
All readers of a text are users of it's language.
This presupposes already understanding the language the ancient text is written in. We must first know what subject they are talking about prior to being able to know that they're talking about the same thing in different ways. That's what a new perspective is.
The problem of course is that we do not have any way of knowing what those marks were actually used for.
So, what you are asking is whether a text has meaning if no one understands the language?
If so, then I would say yes. It may be that the language can be recovered. It has happened before. Once the language is understood the meaning can be discovered. But if the text had no meaning then even if the language was recovered the text would have not meaning.
Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowing what the marks mean IS understanding the language...
The question I'm asking is in the OP. The main thrust of the rest is considering what it would take to know the answer.
Impossible.
How can an ancient text from a long dead people be of great interest depending upon the time or author, when in order to know what the time was or who the author was, the text would have to be already understood, and the text itself would have to state the time and author in the language of the text.
The ancient text is not understood.
Continuing on...
There's a little gleaned by looking at how meaning changes in current languages. Language users can change the meaning of well known terms and phrases simply by virtue of drawing a correlation between pre-existing terms/phrases and something other than what current use correlates with the term/phrase. When enough people do this, the new meaning is an accepted alternative use for the same term/phrase; a new "sense", as it were. There are so many examples of this in the English language, that it ought be obvious to any competent user thereof. So, the meaning of marks change with use.
That is the creation of new meaning.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the creation of the original meaning was any different. There's is also no reason to think that the original meaning did not depend upon the same elemental constituents. This also shows the irrevocably crucial importance that actual language use has regarding the meaning of current texts. It shows what meaning consists of.
Nothing I've said here fatally undermines current convention when it comes to theories of meaning. Rather, it dovetails quite nicely to the SEP article regarding them. Convention has it that all theories of meaning basically fall into two groups. The difference between the two is irrelevant. The similarity is remarkable. They both presuppose symbolism. Symbolism itself is existentially dependent upon the following three things; something to become a sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between the two.
It is imperative to state something here very clearly. Those things which become symbol and symbolized, along with those things which become sign and significant... those things are neither until the correlation is drawn between them.
That is the original attribution and/or creation of meaning. That is how linguistic meaning emerges onto the world stage. There are no examples to the contrary.
Do you imagine that this is not so obvious that you have to state it?
The meaning of a text is not dependent upon anyone at time T actually understanding the language, for at some later time the language might be deciphered as is the case with hieroglyphics.
Quoting creativesoul
There was a great deal of interest in ancient Egypt long before hieroglyphics were successfully deciphered in 1822 after centuries of attempts: http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/rosetta.html
There are other ancient languages that have yet to be deciphered but there is interest in doing so: https://www.livescience.com/59851-ancient-languages-not-yet-deciphered.html; https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/6-lost-languages-and-scripts-that-have-not-yet-been-deciphered/;
Quoting Fooloso4
Some things are obvious to some people. Others, not so much.
What you seemed to have missed is that by virtue of agreeing with me, you've arrived at self-contradiction. You've stated that once the language is understood, then we can discover the meaning. The point I'm making is that it is impossible to understand the language without knowing the meaning and vice-versa. Understanding a language and knowing the meaning are the very same thing.
You've drawn a distinction between the two, and there is no difference to be had.
That presupposes precisely what's at issue here. Do you not see that? Whether or not the meaning of a language is existentially dependent upon it's language users is precisely what needs argued for.
There are innumerable people throughout written history who claim to have deciphered some ancient text or another. I'm not denying that many people, most I would say, think/believe that it is possible to decipher an ancient text from a long dead civilization.
I'm refuting that thought/belief.
In order to even be able to do that, the meaning of the text would have to be able to persist through time, despite the fact of it's users all having long since perished. I'm arguing based upon what can be known about current languages, and how their meaning persists through time. That takes three things. With an ancient text, we have only one.
Upon what ground does one claim to have deciphered an ancient language into our own? Furthermore, even if one can convince others that it is possible, and plenty of people have... what could anyone possibly use as a means for checking to see if the 'translation'(scare-quotes intentional) is correct?
Think about what it takes to do that with two currently used languages. There is no reason to believe that translating an ancient text requires anything less. Deciphering is translating. I mean, even when we have a case of two well-known languages, it is often the case that the meaning of certain expressions in one language are quite simply incapable of being accurately translated into the other language.
Quoting creativesoul
What is the meaning of English? If you know English you can, but may not, understand something written in English but this is not knowing the meaning of English. It is only what is spoken or written in English that has meaning.
Quoting creativesoul
See above.
Quoting creativesoul
You seem to be confusing meaning and knowledge of the meaning. To the extent it is possible to understand the meaning of an ancient text that meaning must exist. If it is just scribbles or random letters or words the text has no meaning.
Quoting creativesoul
If you read the information in the link on the Rosetta Stone you will see why scholars are confident that it has been properly deciphered.
Quoting creativesoul
And that is exactly the case. That is why I pointed it out. It may go against your ill-conceived theory but look at the evidence and not at what you think the evidence must show based on your theory.
Quoting creativesoul
Again, read the link or other information on the Rosetta Stone. Your answer is right there.
Quoting creativesoul
The problems of translation and interpretation go hand in hand. Translators may differ not only with how a passage is to be translated but what the passage means.
Red herring. Try again. Quote me and address my word use.
We're discussing an ancient text. Ancient texts are examples of language use. It is impossible to understand the language use without knowing the meaning, and vice versa.
That's a sharper version, so to speak.
There are some other things you said that warrant further discussion...
Then there's to consider meaning in relation to the author which probably requires us to know his intent, a little bit of which may be deduced from his socio-cultural environment.
Then there's the central theme of the text. If it's era-specific or pertains to an age then the meaning would be lost/difficult to relate to. However, if the text is timeless, e.g. it could be about human nature, something that has probably not changed, then the text will be meaningful.
Let's not forget personal meaning imposed on the text by its reader.
Just babbling...
That's an interesting charge given the position I argue for.
Quoting Fooloso4
I agree. That is precisely what needs argued for. Do you have an argument for that claim?
Quoting Fooloso4
Gratuitous assertion is unacceptable here. No matter how many times you state it without an argument, it's still needs argued for.
You point to different kinds of meaning. That's no problem. Good to note it actually. Knowing what they all have in common, which makes them all meaning, that is what it takes to address the issue of the ancient text...
What is all linguistic meaning existentially dependent upon? Does that answer hold good for the ancient text? Does it have what it takes? That us the general approach here.
Fix your links...
Nevermind. It was on my end... My apologies. Reading the Rosetta Stone link now...
The Rosetta Stone was written in language that is still in use, and was when found. Thus, it is not an example of what I'm talking about. The OP clearly delineates the candidates under consideration...
It is also clear that you've not rightly understood the argument I'm presenting.
Symbolism?
That's a good start.
What is symbolism existentially dependent upon?
Quoting creativesoul
An ancient text from a long dead people does not have what it takes to be meaningful. We have the signs, marks, symbols... that's it. The referents may still exist. There is no longer anyone drawing the correlations. There is no way for us to know what they were.
Agreed. This became a problem in my discussions. I think that some people either missed or (for some reason unclear to me) rejected my point that the first meaning can be more useful than the second meaning, yet (again, for some reason unclear to me) a bunch of people rigidly stick to the second meaning, even when it becomes a problem.
Means? As in present tense... still means something?
Do we know that?
That is exactly what my argument refutes. We cannot know it is meaningful if it is not. I know it is not. We know it meant something to the language users. I've argued for all those claims without subsequent due attention. The argument for what all meaning is existentially dependent upon has yet to have addressed. One example to the contrary is all it takes...
Just one.
I'll be honest and admit that I haven't read the opening post, at least yet.
But if that's what he's doing, then I made the point multiple times that some people were treating or talking about meaning in the wrong way, in a way which suggested category errors. For example, thinking that it has a location or that it literally resides in something, like a physical object. My point about there being meaning was in a factual or logical sense. The factual sense can be expressed by saying that it would be the case that there is meaning. And the logical sense can be expressed by saying that if it's true that, [i]if there was a being there capable in principle of correctly deciphering the text, then the text has meaning[/I], then the text has meaning.
Does the fourth word on page 265 of the current Oxford English Dictionary mean anything? I could wager it is not in use right now. It certainly meant something maybe five minutes ago when it was last used. I've no doubt it will mean something in five minute's time when it is next used, but right now no-one in the world is using it. Does that mean it has lost its meaning?
So, despite all of that text in the opening post, it all boils down to that one assertion which I've bolded above. You may as well cross out or delete everything else you typed up. And [I]it is[/I] merely an assertion.
Quoting creativesoul
No, that's simply not true. We do not have to accept your assertion, and if we do not, then we can easily reach a different conclusion. And we are all well within our rights to simply dismiss your assertion, as well as everything else that relies on it.
You haven't done anything remarkable here. It's just the same old problem. You merely take for granted the very thing which the debate hinges on.
Knowing the meaning of what? The language or a particular text? If it is the former then it is no different from my example of English. If you mean the latter then it is only by understanding the language that you can understand the meaning of a particular text written in that language. If, on the other hand, as was the case with the Rosetta Stone, you understand the meaning because it was also written in Greek, you do not thereby understand the hieroglyphics.
Quoting creativesoul
Why does it need to be argued for? I think it evident. Imagine some time in the future that English becomes an ancient lost language. Two pieces of paper are found. One had a clear meaning when it was written but the other one did not, it was the result, say, of a child banging on the keyboard. Now if someone were able to decipher English, the meaning of the first would be recovered but the second would remain meaningless. Knowing the meaning would require understanding the language, but understanding the language does not mean that a random string of letters is meaningful.
Quoting creativesoul
You may not believe the Rosetta Stone has been deciphered but to demonstrate that it has not requires more than a poorly stated theory. Do you know how it was deciphered? Here is a brief description: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/archaeology/rosetta-stone3.htm
Quoting creativesoul
The hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone is not still in use. Demotic is not still in use. It was noticed, however, the Demotic was similar to Coptic, which is not still in use either, although scholars can read it and used this knowledge to decipher the Demotic. The Greek on the stone is not still in use although there are scholars who can read it.
Quoting creativesoul
What is the time of us of current languages? Languages change over time. Someone who can read modern Greek cannot read ancient Greek. In addition, someone who understood Koiné or Hellenistic Greek (the Greek the New Testament is written in) is not likely to have understood Classical or Attic Greek (the Greek Plato and Aristotle wrote in).
The use. Language use determines meaning.
Quoting Fooloso4
It needs argued for because just saying that ancient text is meaningful presupposes precisely what's in contention here. Bald and gratuitous assertions are unacceptable. There is nothing gained between two sides of an argument if neither argues for the position. One says this, the other says that. I'm at least offering an argument. The least you could do is address it, since you have none to support your conclusion. Lot's of people believing that something is the case does not make that something the case.
Quoting Fooloso4
I didn't say that. The Rosetta Stone - when discovered - was written in languages still in use at the time of the discovery. Some people could still understand them. The marks, the referents, and the users were all still extant. That is enough to decipher the bits they did not understand. Three stories about the same things. Two of the three were in known languages. Otherwise, they could not have been read. Reading requires understanding. The ability to translate/decipher the unknown bits came as a result.
Thus, the Rosetta Stone is not an ancient text written in a language that had no users.
Are you offering support for my argument?
:wink:
Are the language users all dead?
No. I'm guessing you think that has some material effect, so perhaps you could explain how.
Re-read the thread...
If the language is still being used it is not meaningless. The notion of material effect is out of place. It is not necessary.
I wonder why?
Meaning is not the sort of thing that has a spatiotemporal location. Rather, it is a composition of three things; the direct result of drawing mental correlation. The distance between that which becomes sign/symbol, that which becomes significant/symbolized, and the creature connecting the two differs. A language less creature, a fire, and a mental correlation drawn between the behaviour and the ensuing pain.
The fire became meaningful to the creature as a result of the creature making a connection between touching fire and the resulting pain. All three things(the fire, the pain, the creature) are necessary elemental constituents of the correlation itself.
By virtue of drawing the correlation meaning is attributed, rudimentary thought/belief is formed, and correspondence to fact is presupposed.
I mentioned it, and I mentioned it because of the expressed views of @Terrapin Station, and because it seemed relevant to the problem that @jamalrob brought up, as well as the related problem which I brought up in response, and which you're echoing here: the problem of category errors.
And I agree with you. @Terrapin Station doesn't though, I think. But I'll let him speak for himself. If I've understood him correctly, he thinks that everything has a location, including meaning, including Tuesday - you name it, he'll "locate" it.
The historical is important. Prehistory is the issue because we tend to assume too much without written evidence/varification. We’re more prone to question information today so it seems easier, perhaps too easy, to question any given interpretation and thus erode the very concept of “meaning”.
Sorry, I thought we were discussing the matter. My mistake. You crack on with your lecture, I won't interrupt anymore.
But how would you demonstrate that it is [i]in a nontrivial way[/I]? A trivial way would, for example, be to just [i]assert[/I] that meaning is use, and then interpret that in a way which has your conclusion as a logical consequence. This merely means that meaning is not use (by your interpretation). That assertion would just be dismissed, at least pending support from you.
This sort of thing seems to be a problem for you, and is probably at least partly why you get replies like the one before this.
The above does not support anything afterwards. I do agree with the above. Not so much with what followed.
Quoting I like sushi
An ancient text that has no users could be rightfully described as an historical artifact.
Could you flesh out the difference between historical and pre-historical? Seems to me that such problematic assumptions are most certainly not exclusive to "prehistory".
I thought you were responding to an excerpt of my writing.
I was. You dismissed the question I asked as not necessary. End of discussion. What else do you want me to say? I thought I was taking part in a discussion, not consulting with the Oracle.
So, if a text is considered ‘meaningful’, are we saying that the text contains meaning, or that there is a meaningful relationship between the ancient text and any modern user? Conversely, if a text is considered to have no meaning, are we saying that it is meaningless, or that there is no meaningful relationship established between the text and the modern user?
For meaning to ‘persist through time’, there must be a sense of continuity perceived in this particular relationship between texts and users through time. Take the word ‘love’ for instance. While there is a sense of continuity between this text and the same word (using the same symbols) written in English for the last five hundred years, the claim that a similar continuity exists between users (readers and writers) of the word ‘love’ over that same five hundred years is much less certain.
Meaning is a fluid process of seeking continuity in a relationship between various interactions of users and texts. Statements of meaning in a dictionary attempt to ‘shore up’ this sense of continuity from the side of the text, but language and textual meaning does not so much ‘persist’ through time as much as it flows - changing and fluctuating in small, complex ways with each interaction between texts and users. This is why dictionaries need to be regularly updated, and why we cannot even conclude that the meaning of the ancient text ‘persisted’ (without change) throughout the time period during its use.
So, is a newly discovered and completely unfamiliar ancient text still meaningful?
Well, it doesn’t have inherent meaning that persists through time, if that’s what you mean by ‘still’. The original meaning of the text exists only in the moment the chisel was put to stone, so to speak. That meaning may have been intended for a particular audience and in response to a particular experience or interaction, all of which may not be apparent in the text or its context (where it was found, etc). Nor can we be certain that the meaning intended was effectively communicated to any user at all. Incidentally, we can find various ways in which modern users can interact with the text in a meaningful way, but this is not ‘the meaning’ you’re looking for, is it?
If our intention is to approach the original intended meaning of the text, then we need to concentrate not just on our interaction with the symbols (whether or not these symbols are still in use), but with the original users of those symbols - to share in the human experience that motivated that particular use of that particular combination of symbols in the context of the user’s particular sum of human experiences up to that point. This is not a purely logical process, nor is it ever going to be conclusive. We can really only imagine the original meaning from our position, and to share our various perspectives on it, towards further developing the complex web of continuity in relationships between texts and users throughout time.
Problem of ambiguity again. In practice or in principle?
I could probably go along and identify problems in every single one of your comments. They're always full of problems.
Correct. I think it's incoherent to say that anything exists, that there is any phenomenon that obtains, that does not have a location. That doesn't imply that a location is "simple" or in just one place, but it's a location (or set of locations) nonetheless. Tuesday, for example, is an idea, and as such is located in the minds (minds being identical to subsets of brain structure/function) of the people who are presently thinking the idea. We could also identify it with the word, with words explaining it, etc. in which case it's also located where those words are written (the locations of all of the books mentioning Tuesday, for example), where the sound is recorded, etc.
History means “written” (“histo”). Prehistory refers to the period before written/writing evidence. We know something about the lives of people in the ancient world because they wrote about it. In anthropology the field has suffered during it’s history because people assumed too much about a given culture through the lens of modern eyes with no actual historical evidence using only archeological evidence and inferring from there.
Of course we’re prone to making misleading assumptions about ancient texts too. The point is there is at least a text to work from where we can say someone was buried in some kind of ritual whereas prehistoric evidence does not give us this explicit explanation in all/any cases - it is much more about inferring and is why archeology is a science dealing with the recording of facts adn evidence and not about interpretation.
I think that meaning must be considered alongside context, as indicated here. The OP focusses tightly on meaning, but does not even mention context. I think this is an oversight that could usefully be corrected.
Who writes in hieroglyphs? Who writes or speaks in Demotic or any form of ancient Greek? There are a few people who know how to read these languages but no one "uses" them. They are dead languages. Their use is ancient history. Unlike living languages the meaning of the terms are fixed by how they were used when they were used.
Knowledge of a language, however, is not the end of the matter. What a particular text means does not become apparent when read by someone who knows the language. Just what it means may yield no final answer. We continually debate the meaning of texts. Thus the problem of meaning extends to all texts.
There are texts that no living person knows how to read. They are for us meaningless. If someone were able to decipher the texts, however, then some sense of their meaning would be understood, unless they never had a meaning to begin with. The marks might be practice in writing the letters or words, but a series of letters or words has no coherent meaning as a text. Someone might unwittingly attribute meaning to this, but whoever wrote the marks may have meant no such thing. Or what was written did mean something to the author and its readers, but has come to mean something else. And this might mean different things - misinterpretation, giving significance to things did not have the same significance for the author, meaningful to us because it gives a glimpse into the world of the author.
Someone who understands or, you might say, uses English, does not thereby understand the meaning of meaning, even though he uses the term in a meaningful way. He is not thereby aware of the extent and differences and problems associated with the question of meaning or what 'X' means. And, once again, there is no such thing as the meaning of a language. The language is used to state things that have meaning, or, at least, are intended to have meaning.
You guessed. You asked about the guess. I answered.
And yet they're still meaningful. And that's the problem with interpreting "meaning is use" in this awful idealist way.
If no one is experiencing it right now, then it doesn't exist? If no one is using it right now, then it has no meaning? No and no.
Quoting Fooloso4
For us, yes. But, like you go on to suggest, you can take away the "for us" and there's still a meaning. Unless you merely define meaning [i]as[/I] the "for us", which would be trivial and misguided.
Quoting Fooloso4
Indeed. [I]Their[/I] meaning. The meaning of the texts. (Unless they never had one to begin with).
@Isaac, the Oracle has given his answer. Do not pester the Oracle with your guessing and requests for explanation. The Oracle doesn't explain. The Oracle pronounces.
Nice. This touches upon everything I've brought into consideration thus far, and sharpened one aspect in particular; the bit about meaning changing over time.
It seems you agree with me.
And what exactly can be known based upon the marks alone if there are no users of the language?
Wittgenstein is often implicated but is not guilty by association.
Quoting S
I think creativesoul agrees with this but thinks it requires an argument to demonstrate its truth. But then again, although I am a "user" of English, whatever it is he thinks he has so clearly stated evades me.
:up:
Quoting Fooloso4
The problem isn't that it requires an argument, because prior to this discussion there have been at least three discussions with pages upon pages of argument for just that. It has been the hot topic on the forum for weeks. Two of my discussions on this topic are the two most viewed discussions of the month, and my third more recent one is the most viewed of the week.
We've been over this already. I gave argument. You ignored it. You offer gratuitous assertions.
Reading presupposes understanding the meaning of a text. One cannot possibly understand the meaning of a text without using it. One cannot possibly read a text without using it.
All readers of a text are users of it's language.
Just because it has not been mentioned, does not mean it hasn't been accounted for.
@Fooloso4, apparently you can't understand a text without reading it or knowing the language, and reading it makes you a user of the language. I know, I don't see the logical relevance either. At least not outside of his little world with all of his implicit assumptions that not everyone shares.
His argument is a success... so long as you share all of his implicit assumptions, which you and I and others do not.
I think we can agree that meaning of the same marks, signs, and symbols changes through time and different use. The scare-quotes are no longer necessary. The meaning of a text is determined by the users of the language. That meaning can persist through time even if there are more than one(accepted in practice) use for the marks, even if the marks are correlated to different things than the original users. The original meaning, however, could not persist if no one correlated the marks to the same things at all. The same holds good of all common use.
Orwell...
The difference in "senses" of a mark is determined by what it is correlated to/with. All this is relevant to misunderstandings between people who use the same marks but do not understand one another.
I'm unsure how this applies to the ancient text, in general. It may have had different meanings throughout it's use. If the last actual users of the text did not draw the same correlations between it and other things, then they themselves would not be using the text to talk about the same things as the original users. While the ancient text could have meant lots of things to different people who used the text, or the language therein, it still seems to be the case that after all the users perished, so too did the all of the correlations drawn between the marks and other things.
The last point is the problem. It depends on the meaning of 'use'. I use it in the same sense that Wittgenstein does - use in practice. Reading a text is not practicing a language. A dead language is by definition no longer practiced.
The difference?
Understanding the meaning.
Okay. I think this says all that needs to be said.
You assume that the ancient text is still meaningful despite it's users all having perished. That needs argued for in my book. In yours, evidently not. That's fine by me. However, all you've done is fallen prey to confirmation bias.
The Rosetta Stone is not all problematic for anything I've said here. It fits right in.
And yet Latin is still used...
I agree, except that I don't actually think that it's a problem either way in the broader context of what this discussion is supposed to be about, because the text would continue to have meaning, in my sense, either way. It doesn't have to be read or practised if the meaning depends on the language rules, and the language rules don't die with the language, which is just to say that it has fallen out of use. I still go by "meaning is use" when suitably interpreted or qualified. I count historic use as a use. That would be what it means in this case. A simple and easy resolution. Meaning by language rules and meaning by use are compatible. You can't have meaning as use without implicit language rules.
The author's world does not amount to your misattribution of meaning to his/her words...
If one misattributes meaning to an author's words, the author's world is not understood.
And the relevance...? :yawn:
The text has meaning, whereas the marks could either have meaning or not, but that can't be known either way if all we know through your unclear comment above is that they're marks. The marks [i]could be[/I] text. They could even be [I]the[/I] text: the one you're referring to. The text could be in English. It could be meaningful. Or it could just be random meaningless marks. You'd need to clarify.
Quoting creativesoul
So much projection. Anyway, I think I'll join the bandwagon by vacating this discussion and leaving you in peace to argue with yourself. Have fun!
The question of what this thread is about has been foremost in my mind from the beginning. I still haven't figured it out. It may be there is no figuring it out. It may all be a dance of the defensive. I think I stepped into an ongoing argument and will step out.
Jamalrob hit the nail on the head early on. It is and it isn't. It depends.
If no one understands it then the meaning is lost. What is your point? This is obvious?
That's a better way of wording it. There's a meaning, only it's lost to us.
He's a slowcoach at getting to the point. I often have to try to make an informed guess at the logical connections that he leaves inside his head instead of making explicit. Prepare to be disappointed, as it will probably just be the trivial point that if there are no users of the language, then there's no meaning [i]by his definition[/I].
By his definition, you couldn't rightly say that there's a meaning, but it's lost to us. There just wouldn't be a meaning at all.
His definition isn't very useful. It's limiting and counterproductive.
Clearly the scare-quotes are necessary, as you continue to assert that meaning can persist through time, when I’ve already explained why it doesn’t. There is a difference between continuity of meaning and persistent meaning - the original meaning does not persist, it cannot persist because of the nature of meaning. Once the text is created, all we have are relationships between the text within context (including the author’s subjective experience) and ourselves within context. When we talk about meaning persisting, we mistakenly assume that we can extract the original meaning of some texts but not others, when the best we can do is approach it by understanding (often by imagining) the context of the author’s experience.
This is what happens when you make a statement or assertion in this forum, too. The original meaning of your statement exists only in your subjective relationship with what you wrote. You cannot assume that it persists anywhere else, let alone that anyone reading it would understand your meaning as ‘the meaning’ simply because the markings you’ve used to communicate it are regularly in use today. So when they query what you wrote, you can’t just refer back to what you wrote as if ‘the meaning’ is inherent in the markings themselves. You need to give more information about the subjective experience behind what you wrote. You need to offer more context. Otherwise they attribute their own meaning to what you wrote, or dismiss it as nonsense.
How does this relate to the ancient text? Well, an ancient text, like all texts, does not stand alone - it exists in context. So it is only potentially meaningless if we are ignorant of context - of the relationships it has with anything and everything we experience and interact with today - not just the language. As long as we can relate to the context surrounding a text, we can begin to approach the original meaning, to imagine it and strive to understand it - although only the author could ever really ‘know’ it. This is not necessarily because it is ancient and the original users of the language are all dead. It’s difficult to assume the original meaning even of a modern text, if we cannot relate to its context.
My point - once again - is that you are presupposing something to be lost.
I do not.
I argue for my position.
Another point is that you refuse to address any argument in lieu of serving up fish. We Iike 'em raw.
You're arguing with yourself, and the idiot over your shoulder is distracting your thought. Click on my avatar. Clink on comments. Read my arguments. Address my arguments.
Incorrect. You set the proposition of “ancient text” not “ancient squiggles”. Either way I assume we’re dealing with an archeological artifact (manmade or orherwise - as it may have been a natural occurance). Given that it appears as a manmade product, say on sheets of hide with obviously intentional markings, we can assume it’s at the very least a representation of a writing system even if it’s a pseudo one.
The term "proposition" does not belong here. My position will show you what's wrong with the notion itself. It will also show you What's Really Going On With Gettier....
All of that is for another thread. This one deals with my position. My position is set out on my terms. "Proposition" is your term, not mine. Explain it's relevance.
To start a line of thinking with "either way" misleads the reader.
You are presupposing something lost by calling it a “text”. If not then you’re saying little more than “this text is not a text”. At best you could say this is not a text it is a pseudo-text.
Surely you can follow my thinking here? If I miss your point assume for a second it may be due to the manner in which you’ve presented it and not just the manner in which I am reading it.
I readily grant that it was meaningful to it's users.
The last point was well made and well taken.
You gave two choices. Those were contained within quotation marks. I said neither.
Lack of clarity?
It's a text. Texts are in language. Languages are meaningful to their users. Ancient texts were meaningful to their users.
How much clearer can it be said?
What I can say - at best - is what follows from my argument, not yours. You offered two choices. Both were in quotes. Neither accurately represents my arguments. Both say something I have not and would not.
Your line of thinking here is a summation, and quite the mistaken one at that, of my own.
I think the remark about the Rosetta Stone may help here.
The Rosetta Stone is an ancient artifact. It is not correct to say the “language is still in use” in the same manner it is incorrect to say that Old English is still in use. Languages are plastic; they evolve.
In the language of mathematics the meaning does persist through time. If all trace of it was lost it could still be rediscovered, and in this line of thinking propositional logic could still be rediscovered too.
Colloquial speech is a different landscape because we have artistry involved in the form of idioms and analogies that may, or may not, refer to specific historical instances of which the context may be lost.
I imagine this is all quite obvious to most people here. So what is your point in light of the above? I still don’t see much yet I assume there is a lot more to this because you persist.
Agreed. But lack of mention means that this accounting is far from obvious.... :chin:
You’re being pedantic. You said “ancient text” in the OP and the second term in parenthesis was clearly a suggestion that would make sense (at least to me.)
I am, and have been, asking what your point is. I’ve not seen one yet.
You've set out a distinction between persistent meaning and the continuity of meaning, whereas the former is unequivocally denied. That outright denial follows from your notion/conception of meaning which you're confident accounts for and/or is applicable to all examples of meaning as indicated by the mention of "the nature of meaning" in addition to the line of reasoning offered in support of that. So, if I understand you rightly, then "the nature of meaning" is explained and/or exemplified by it's continuity, and because of that, meaning cannot persist through time.
Do you agree that the meaning of the same marks, signs, and symbols changes through time with different use?
Quoting Possibility
One who unequivocally denies that meaning can persist through time doesn't talk about what it takes, for if they do they arrive at incoherence/equivocation/self-contradiction. It's also bad form(at best) and/or fallacious(at worst) for an author to talk in terms of "we" when s/he is not of the group. The group, in this instance, consists of those who argue for and thus talk about the persistence of meaning. I am one of that group, and I'm perfectly capable of making my own arguments. When I talk about meaning persisting, I do not talk in terms of 'extracting' meaning because that would be to presuppose that meaning was the sort of thing that can be extracted - in some complete 'form' or another - from only a text. It's not, ancient texts notwithstanding.
May I suggest that you re-read what I've argued for(and against) here, because much of your disagreement rests upon something other than what I've been arguing?
Quoting Possibility
In the beginning of your reply you said, and I quote, "Once the text is created, all we have are relationships between the text within context (including the author’s subjective experience) and ourselves within context." You've now brought that claim to bear in what's directly above; full circle, as it were. That claim is dubious. There are a number of possible scenarios regarding text creation.
The issue here is the very notion of context that you're employing as a means to account for meaning.
Meaning is determined by the language users drawing correlations between the text and other things. The context is the other things. The language users no longer exist. The other things may or may not. The correlations drawn by the users between the text and the other things no longer exist. We do not have the context of an ancient text. The context is gone.
Saying "an ancient text, like all texts, does not stand alone - it exists in context" is false, unless you're talking about the context involving us and the text. That's utterly irrelevant.
Meaning does not have a location. To talk of meaning persisting 'anywhere' is wrong minded.
That said, the above isn't entirely wrong. The additional information spoken of above is sometimes necessary to ensure that the meaning is shared. That we understand one another.
Linguistic meaning persists through time by virtue of a plurality of people drawing the same correlations between different things, with at least one of those things being language use.
Yes, but would it look the same? Would it be a rediscovery, or something else? And if an ‘ancient artifact’ containing our current mathematical language were to be found thousands of years later, how would we then reconnect the two?
What would we have to lose to ensure that ‘all trace of it was lost’? What is it that ‘persists’?
I meant “all trace” as in “all WRITTEN trace”. Reality persists.
And yes, it would look them same - in function at least. If lost and then discovered again it would technically be a “rediscovery” from our hypothetical position. For the “rediscoverers” it would be a “new discovery” obviously.
"John, could you close the door on your way out?"
That question can have very different meaning depending upon the situation in which it is said. We all know this to be true. Intonation alone... We all use English. We all understand English. Despite that much, we could still get the meaning of the question quite wrong if all we have is the written text. It would be a result of not having enough of what it takes to get it right.
What this shows is that written language use alone isn't enough... It is most certainly necessary.
Still idea what your point is. I can only assume now that you don’t actually have one and your “argument” (whatever/if it is) isn’t apparent to me.
I've reached the conclusion that statements like the above are naive, because they think that they're saying something about nature, rather than, really, something trivial about their own use of language.
Not really. You just assert a definition and point out a logical consequence.
Bravo. :clap:
The bit with you began by you using a false dichotomy between history and pre-history. The general point is that an ancient totally unfamiliar text is meaningless if all it's users have perished. As a result, there is no ability to decipher one if that's all that is had. That is the thrust of the OP and the arguments/reasoning in support.
Have you read my parts in this thread?
That sort of thinking will impede you. Definitions can be wrong. There is a difference between 'just asserting' a definition and arguing for one. Apparently, you do no see the relevance of justificatory strength either, and all that that involves...
Put down the axe. There are no proper grinding stones around here.
Of course, you are still faced with the meaning of your own words in this thread persisting through time as well... Outright denial doesn't make any sense at all in light of that.
Why are you stating the obvious by saying if we cannot find meaning in something it has no meaning to us? If you’re suggesting that because we cannot find any meaning in something there isn’t any possible meaning that is no more than a mere assumption.
What “false dichotomy”? You appeared not to know the difference between “history” and “pre-history” so I told you. It is something anyone who knows a reasonable amount anout history and archeology should know. Understand you’re saying something equivalent to the differentiation between “the bronze age” and “the iron age” is a false dichotomy.
Still waiting for what your “argument” is. Hope is dwindling fast so maybe your time would be better spent replying to the other guys here. I’ll take a back seat.
Ah, you've stopped ignoring me, at least for a moment.
I agree that definitions can be wrong, in a sense. That would be a much more productive direction for the discussion to take than where you began with your opening post, and in what you've done in many subsequent posts, where you merely assume your own definition and point out logical consequences.
There has been a lot of this:
Quoting creativesoul
But that doesn't do anything at all.
I haven't seen any arguments from you about why we should accept your definition in the first place. And without that, then the logical consequences which follow from your definition are trivial.
Or at least, I haven't seen any [i]good[/I] arguments. I do recall you appealing to "meaning is use", but you interpret that poorly, in a way which leads to undesirable logical consequences.
I've already made points for adopting my definition over yours, but obviously you ignored them, which in my books is tantamount to accepting defeat. So unless you have a response, I win by default. That's how debates work.
I agree with your analysis. This has become more about what he is doing wrong than the actual topic about ancient texts. That happens with certain people on this forum. Some people try to do philosophy, but it just ends up effectively being an invitation for other people to analyse their errors in thinking.
I’m under no illusion that there is ‘the meaning’ of my words that persists through time. Whenever I interact with the words I wrote, there is meaning in that interaction, and a sense of continuity between that meaning and the ‘original meaning’ when I wrote it, seen as a relationship. When you interact with the same words, there is potentially a different meaning as a different relationship, and I can only approach your meaning by interacting with the way you then express your relationship with the words, within the context of what I understand about the English language, about this thread discussion and what little I understand about you - just as you can better approach the ‘original meaning’ by interacting with the context of the English language, etc and what you understand about me (eg. what else I have written in this thread).
The words persist through time (also debatable as a digital entity), but meaning is found in each interaction with those words. If you talk about persistence of meaning, then you run into assumptions that this meaning exists as an entity instead of a dynamic relationship. I get that you understand what you mean, but it’s not always coming across as clearly as it appears in your mind. I don’t expect anyone to understand what I’m talking about just because I wrote it down.
Quoting I like sushi
I knew the difference. I also knew that that difference made no difference. I called it a "false dichotomy" as a result of having no difference that mattered but being put out there as though one were an issue and the other was not. Both history and pre-history are prone to the assumptions that you claimed were a problem with only the one. That is irrelevant. However, I'm open to being shown otherwise.
I do wonder if I called this by the wrong name. I don't think that false dichotomy fits. False analogy maybe? Red herring, certainly.
Quoting I like sushi
I didn't say that.
I have carefully re-read our exchange. I think that I understand what you're saying about my use of "ancient text". You claim that "ancient text" presupposes something lost. This is an irrelevant quibble. I'm open to be shown otherwise. It certainly presupposes that it was meaningful to users of it's language. That is readily granted without prejudice.
I suggest you click on my avatar. Click on comments, and take a bit of your precious time to learn about what you are arguing against. It would very foolish of you to assume I've not already done everything you've said ought be done, and more...
Help yourself.
We could always take this to the appropriate place. I mean, if you want a real debate, I'm down.
I’m NOT arguing. How can I when I’ve no idea what you are proposing?
The gist I’ve read is that someone writes a text (therefore the act has meaning to them). All the people die and the language dies with them. The meaning is lost.
From here you could argue about the actual existence of “meaning” (by which I assume you mean “stored information”?), but it doesn’t really matter. The information is lost and it would seem impossible to recover - in which case we’d infer some hidden meaning but never be able to know one way or another.
That’s my best guess as to what you mean. Amend/confirm if you can.
Fair enough. Pardon my argumentative posture.
I'm proposing that any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless.
Quoting I like sushi
That's close enough.
That's fairly accurate. However, it's the notion of "meaning" that I'm working from that is of utmost importance here.
I would agree with this in general. What interests me most here is thoroughly unpacking the bit about the interacting with words. It's within what you call interactions with words, perhaps, that I believe there is common ground to be found.
Have you changed your mind about meaning persisting through time?
It's quite a nuanced process to grasp, but it does not have any issue at all with accomodating changes in the meaning of the same signs/symbols. The evolution of meaning and meaning persisting through time are not mutually exclusive. It can be and I'm certain that both happen and they do so by virtue of the very same process.
Quoting Possibility
Fair enough. However, here you point towards the possibility of assuming that meaning exists as an entity as a result(?) of talking about the persistence of meaning through time. In the sentence just prior to that, however, you talked about "meaning is found". To me, that most certainly presupposes that meaning is the sort of thing that can be found. If finding is discovering, and all things discovered exist in their entirety prior to their discovery, then any meaning that is found must already exist in it's entirety, prior to it's discovery.
Although I do not find it helpful. It seems rather unnecessary. I would not entirely balk at that notion. But again, that is a very nuanced understanding, and on my view there is no meaning to be found unless the correlations have already been drawn, and are still currently being drawn.
No need to “propose”. Just say it. We speak English and understand what that means. If you don’t know what this means I’ll tell you. It means “we cannot find meaning in something we cannot find”. Again, obvious.
As to the issue of “meaning” you appear to be conflating this with “information”. That is probably what is causing us to talk past each other.
Meaning is not a concept to be given ostensively. The ostenisive giving is the expression of information which provides a shared objective meaning through language.
Another thing is a “dead text” can still be recognised as a text. There are certain grammatical rules understood by linguistics that can help us differentiate between a string of random squiggles and an actual language. If we know that some markings are from a language, or a means to communicate/express some thought/idea, then archeological terms it provides information. The intent of the author may be lost for ever, yet the intent can be reasonably assumed or they’d be no markings (of course they could be accidental, but certain marking ae highly unlikely - impossible - to be accidental).
Maybe you’d be better off expressing to me what you think the connection between information and meaning is?
Quoting creativesoul
Followed by this...
Quoting I like sushi
Red herring. Poisoning the well. Non-sequitur.
Unacceptable. Discard.
I'm all ears. Show me how you understand my position better than I. During this demonstration be sure to use my arguments and show how they only lead to the conclusion that you've arrived at.
One is existentially dependent upon the other, but not the other way around.
Information presupposes meaning.
Quoting I like sushi
Then all of archeology presupposes that they have meaningful information. I'm refuting the very idea.
All you can infer is that it was a language and it was meaningful to the speakers. If you know what sorts of things can be meaningful and how they become so, then you'd also know that what I'm proposing is true.
Quoting I like sushi
Granted. We can most certainly conclude that it was a language used by a community.
If you’re expecting disagreement with the above then you’ll be looking long and hard.
Meaning is existentially dependent upon information or information is existentially dependent upon meaning? Explain whatever you mean as best you can then I’ll disagree.
You're conflating products of your imagination with my words. More of the same. Red herring. Non-sequitur. Strawman. Etc...
Why would I bother?
You've disagreed with several true claims already.
The “meaning” is it’s “use”. An exmaple would be that the meaning of “a seat” is in how it is used. The “meaning” is not some disembodied entity.
I'm not going to do either of those things. I'd rather you just make a clear point in support of adopting your definition over mine, and a point which I haven't already addressed, or if I have already addressed it, then address [i]that[/I]. Again, this is how this works.
I'm still not sure you get the real problem here, because you're still saying completely pointless and unhelpful stuff like this:
Quoting creativesoul
This depends on your definition, so it is trivial in and of itself. You need to start talking about why you think that we should adopt your definition. Everything else is just pointless distracting noise which only [I]looks[/I] like doing philosophy. That includes all of the usual "this is existentially dependent on that" mumbo jumbo. But I get it: it's hard to break out of bad habits.
No. It doesn't. It depends upon what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so. Meaning is prior to language. That which is prior to language is not existentially dependent upon it. Definitions are. Definitions of that which exists prior to language can be wrong.
This is basically a parody of itself, so I don't really have to lift a finger. But I will, because I can't resist pointing out what's wrong with your reply.
How can we have a sensible discussion about what sort of things can be meaningful and what makes them so, without analysing what is meant by that? It really isn't complicated. It's simple. And it is trivial.
If you mean "meaningful to us", which you basically do, then the logical consequences are easy to work out. Is that all you want to do here? No one will actually disagree with you on that. They'll just question the supposed value in doing that.
Yes, any and all texts written in language that is completely and totally devoid of users is utterly meaningless (per your meaning of meaning). That is a trivial logical consequence. Is that what you wanted?
And please, give your mumbo jumbo a rest. I am not the only one who is sick of it.
Do you not already know what that means?
:yikes:
I'd be more than happy to discuss what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so.
Which question? I left several unanswered. You and I may find productive(or at least interesting) dialogue concerning "meaning is use". You may be surprised that I reject that as written here. There is no equivalence.
Well my good man... Ya know, it's not like you're being physically restrained against your will, arms and legs securely bound, eyelids propped open by toothpicks, sat in front of the computer screen, and forced to do whatever it is that you think you're doing here...
Mirror mirror...
The existential question was already answered...
Which one was not that you want to be?
You don't really think that para-consistency will work out here do you?
:kiss:
If you're here as a sparring partner... thanks!
I’m out.
Fine by me.
I'm happy to accept each and every notion of "meaning" here. What makes them meaningful? Certainly they all are. I would posit that it is the same thing that makes anything and everything meaningful that is so.
You see, there's a bit of common sense here. While there is no doubt that there are several different competing conceptions/notions of "meaning", some of which are negations of others and/or are otherwise incommensurate/incompatible with one another, they are all still meaningful.
From this, we can certainly surmise that being meaningful is not a mere matter of definition.
Huh?
:worry:
Sorry. Wrong number.
What text are you reading?
Language use is meaningful. That covers everything ever spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered. What makes all language use meaningful? Well, there's quite a bit that does. There are all sorts of different kinds of meaningful language use. The differences here, just as the differences in notions of "meaning" aren't helpful for the task at hand. They all set out different kinds of meaning. The question - of course - is what sorts of things can be meaningful and what makes them so? Different sorts of language use can be meaningful. Different kinds of meaning are expressed and/or shared with different kinds of language use.
What makes them all meaningful?
Use, friction and all that other Witty jazz you've heard up to your ears about?
Ok. Some markings are from a language. Granted. You say that the text provides information. Sure. You say that the intent of the author may be lost forever, sure... maybe. I can go with that. I would grant that the author had intent.
So what?
It does not follow from this that the text is still meaningful.
This is an interesting claim, given that there is no universal syntax, grammar, nor form that all currently spoken and/or otherwise understood languages follow.
On what ground could one claim that what they are looking at is not language, when talking about ancient marks?
I would suggest that the text is meaningful if a correlation can be made between subjective human experiences through their interaction with the text.
I know what I mean. Do you think that we mean the same thing? :brow:
You might well be more than happy to talk past me, but I think that that would be a problem. We need to get meaning sorted first before you get ahead of yourself.
I think that I mean one thing and you mean another thing, and that your discussion is trivial, because all it does is say that according to your meaning, such-and-such a logical consequence follows. Why do you seem to think that that's significant?
Okay, then continue with your mumbo jumbo, even though it does you no good.
You've not said anything relevant there again. That is just truism. You've had that problem throughout this discussion.
Quoting creativesoul
No one even made that claim as far as I'm aware.
It doesn't follow that it's not, unless your definition makes it so. In that case, the real question would be: why are you doing that? It doesn't seem helpful.