Banno

Sure; only we can pretty much drop "meaning" in favour of "use"... Look at what we do with words rather than mean with them.

Indeed; it depends entirely on what "prior" might mean...

'ello, Meta. Do we do this again? So, if as you say meaning is a relation between things, what sort of things is it a relation between? Words and...?

Very much so. Hence the distinction between showing and telling; You can show someone the rope; from there, they can climb up or down.

Yes, although I suggest we avoid reifying meaning.

Really? I'd understood that I said much the same thing four different ways. It is more than conceivable that we could mean things in other ways than w...

Meaning is not a function of language; meaning is something we do with language. But better: forget about meaning altogether and just look at what we ...

What are we debating? I like debates. I said meaning is not separable from language, and hence that it is an error to suppose that meaning can be prio...

It appears that implicit in the OP is the notion that words represent what we mean. That strikes me as a misguided approach to the relation between me...

Or, if you prefer, Austin, J.L.: How to do things with words.

See Wittgenstein, L: Philosophical Investigations; and elsewhere.

Meaning is what we do with language.

I wasn't.

No it isn't.

Counting, and meaning, are the action; number, and language, the tool.

Thanks, Creative. Although I am always pleased to see one of my threads thrive, I've not spent much effort in following this one. The thread started o...

Is counting prior to number?

Is it that McGinn hasn't worked this out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmDY7y8CvA

Perhaps you doubt too much. Let's follow Austin. If we have brute facts, then there must be facts that are not brute. Searle, when he used the term, p...

Doesn't that make a brute fact just a true statement that is not subject to doubt?

Nor to the Bullshitter; which is what we have to hand.

I would, if you were worthy of some attention.

Shall we take Politifact as a reliable source? Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personali...

Thanks - back to the OP.

Meh. Maybe. I'd be confident that one could show an ape how to use a phone. AS for imagining a culture I don't understand, all I have to do is look at...

Indeed; that is exactly what I said. So your claim is that we can imagine a class of things, such that we cannot imagine any element of that class?

Is this about existential quantification? If so, then to exist is to be an element in the domain of discourse; roughly, to exist is to be spoken of. R...

But in supposing that there might be unimaginable things, you are imagining the unimaginable. It's a rather clear example of banging your head on the ...

How could there be a "yes" answer? That implies that we imagined the unimaginable; comprehended the incomprehensible.

Are there things that our current mind cannot comprehend, understand or even imagine no matter what? What a useless question.

The OP is a question about the use of the word "everything". Surely a utilitarian would agree?

Two approaches might help. In the first fiction and metaphor are translated into true statements; so, roughly, Bilbo destroyed the One Ring is true if...

Possible world semantics provides a structure in which what you might be calling "potential entities" can be discussed in a coherent fashion. You migh...

Cool. Now, what is it we could learn?

Yes.

Yes. A good reply.

Interesting. So language and the world are co-extensive?

Un, your pithy replies are gold.

Indeed! So the fellow waving his gladius must be Apo!

So your argument here is: Lewis is shite; Lewis is a part of modal logic; therefore all modal logic is shite. Your own offering is wanting.

Argument? If you can't see that the OP is a question about word use, then that's not my problem. But it is puzzling that an erstwhile utilitarian baul...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkyWec8m5W4

If it is, it might be the only one.

Lewis has a particular slant on the way existential quantifiers work; fun!

Hm. People play Scrabble and Monopoly, too.

Love this. No, I studied modal logic instead. Much more interesting.

Yes. That's rather my point. Metaphysics is a defunct language game; the wheels turn, the mechanism moves, nothing happens. To order coffee and seduce...

That's a straight question?

A good interpretation of the question. The answer is that non-material things exist if you include them in the domain of discourse.