Words don’t mean things; only people mean things

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

The title is something I formalized years ago, so often did I find myself saying it at debate. Its opposite—people don’t mean things, only words mean things—is mostly false in my system of thought. Humans are the meaners, and they have many other ways besides words to transfer their meaning. Our facial gestures alone can tell a whole story. And we moan, we shriek, we give the finger, we shudder at bad news. And then there are those damned silly mimes.

But on forums such as these, the written word is all we have.

We humans learn language from childhood, as we learn to walk. It’s natural to us and bone deep. We don’t examine our walking as we walk; we just walk. And in my experience, even philosophers can sometimes do the same with their talkings.

Often debaters accuse the other guy of twisting their words. Sometimes that’s legit, but mosttimes it looks to me like a misunderstanding of language. Underneath it is the belief that words mean what they mean—by which the complainer usually means “my favorite definition from my favorite dictionary.”

The other guy is using his/her words as he uses them. Our job is to translate, to learn his language and see if it’s integrated—if he is able to engage the world through his own language system in an integrated way. If we can learn his language, maybe he can show us something we haven’t seen.

It’s why I ask so many tedious questions. I’m trying to learn the other guy. He doesn’t have to use “truth” in the same way in every instance. I actually think that’s impossible. He only has to be able to tie his thoughts or framework together by honestly engaging questions about it.

I think we’re integrated in our language inasmuch as we can endure questioning—inasmuch as we can say what we think in a different way, from different directions.

So I’m here to assert that language is not math, and dictionaries are not holy.

Words contain meaning is true (or false).

Words do not contain meaning is true (or false).

It depends on whether the guy who puts one of those propositions on the table can defend it in an integrated way.

So I’m claiming that it’s not the language so much as the guy, the whole mind, operating within and demonstrating its wordworld. By immersing ourselves in his world of words, we might see things in a different way.

Which is learning.

I’m happy to try my best to answer any questions.

4 Likes
2

I agree with much of your post, but I feel like the use of language is to convey meaning, not to have or hold it per se. Thus, if you are using the word “contain” in that way, I believe a happy agreement can be found insofar as humans are what mean things, and written words are just one means used to overcome a bottleneck in conveying the meaning intended by the human.

Thus, those two propositions are, imo, not too impactful. But, according to what I wrote, I suppose we could easily just claim that the latter proposition is unchallenged and therefore there is no ambiguity. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by words “containing” meaning.

This is definitely true, and feeds into the view that words merely convey meaning. If words were treated as if they did not merely convey meaning, this discursive process would be severely hamstrung; it would be difficult to put words into context or find some semantic common ground upon which to proceed in discussions not possessing absolutely clear, agreed upon terms. Which would be many.

Of course, this also applies outside of direct confrontations and debate—as you note. And the amount of lifting done with a single word—even if used in an inconsistent way—could be greater than a large amount of easily deciphered exposition.

So, I guess the question is: if words only convey meaning, then what makes them different from any of the other means of transferring meaning that you listed in the beginning of the OP? I mean, you wouldn’t ask if a mime that mimes being in an invisible box is actually creating or discovering a tangible box, would you?

3

You directly point out why your thesis makes no sense. You don’t know me, you have no access to me. You only have access to my words. Yet you know what I mean by these words. This is not possible if “words don’t mean things”.

4

Hi, Toothy Maw. Yes, ‘convey’ is a good word. We try to communicate (convey) what’s in our heads into other heads. I think I was also trying to point at words as containers. Is the meaning in the word? Or is the meaning in our heads?

We make cultural agreements about the meanings of words and then we write dictionaries. I think problems can arise if we forget that the dictionary is not a holy book. It is a record of how we’ve been using our words—not a commandment for how we must use them.

Well, a frown can’t be put on paper and looked at and manipulated with other facial expressions to tell a story or search for truth—not in the way a word can.

A word is a real object—to our ears and, more dangerously, to our eyes.

A frown is fleeting and unique to each frowner, but a word can give the illusion of standing still and meaning the same thing in every instance.

But that is clearly not the case. Each speaker gets to use his words as he uses them. If he goes too far afield, people will stop listening. If he doesn’t go far enough afield, he will be boring.

Not tangible, but yeah, he’s creating a(n) invisible box with his body movements, I would say.

That’s what language is, I think. It’s compression. I can stand next to the mime and say, “He’s inside an invisible box,” and convey the same meaning as would take him 300 calories and 13 minutes to convey.

5

I think you must mean ‘makes no sense to hypericin’.

And apparently it made enough sense for you to attack it. Why would you attack a thing which makes no sense to you? It must have made some sense.

Why do you assume that I know what you mean by your words?

You yourself have apparently misunderstood the meaning of my OP, after all.

You think I said “words cannot convey meaning”, even though I said nothing at all like that.

6

No. I mean, ‘it makes no sense.’ Independently of me.

And by ‘it makes no sense’, I mean the argument is unsound. Not that it is incomprehensible. I suspect you were able to infer that perfectly well, from my words alone.

I assumed that on the basis of your op, and the simplicity of my reply, you had the linguistic competency to understand it.

Your point, as I understand it (which is certainly succeptable to being wrong), is that meaning lies primarily with the speaker. That words in themselves are just vehicles to meaning, which, in the absence of knowledge of the speaker’s particularities, cannot be said to convey meaning in and of themselves.

While I wouldn’t say that meaning is entirely independent of speaker, I would say that you wildly overstate it’s importance.

You don’t seem to realize how rigidly conformity is enforced in language, how marginal individual idiosyncracies really are. And for good reason. Imagine going to the store and needing to understand the individual manner of speaking used by the clerk before asking where the milk is.

If either of us spoke in such an eccentric manner that we needed to know each other before we communicated, we would be banned for lacking the linguistic competency to participate here.

7

Ah. You’re the guy who–from a purely objective stance—knows what makes sense and what doesn’t.

OK. I will only say that you seem to have a good bit of competition out there. How do I decide which of you is actually the judge of sense?

Right. Objectively unsound. It makes me wonder why you come to debate at all. Can’t you just scan through all the messages, seeing the sound and the unsound?

I mean, if you can see unsound arguments as you see three grapes on a table, why do you tell everyone that there are three grapes on the table? Isn’t it obvious to all observers? What’s the point of talking about it?

Well, I did understand it. I saw that you had become confused and had accused me of saying a thing I did not say.

It happens, language being so ambiguous and all.

And the listener, yes.

No, that’s your misunderstanding. Of course words can convey meaning, assuming both parties belong to the same language culture.

Where did you get the idea that I meant words cannot convey meaning in and of themselves?

That’s a fine personal opinion. A wrong opinion, but still an opinion.

I am amazed how you know so much about my thought after reading only a handful of my words. It seems almost like magic to me.

Why would your opinion about that be better than mine? I am pretty sure, from listening to you, that you have no special training in language. Or am I wrong about that?

OK, I just ran the experiment. I did that—asked for the milk—and he brought me some kind of soy stuff. And only in a half gallon, when I clearly meant the gallon. I sent him back again and he brought me Milk of Magnesia. I can’t bring this home to the wife for the breakfast meal.

It seems you may be mistaken. Apparently the meaning was in my mind, but the language didn’t carry it properly into his.

Who said anything about people needing to know each other before they can speak? That sounds a bit cray cray.

Why are you putting all these wrong meanings into my words?

8

In Wittgensteinian terms, the meaning of a word is its use in a sentence; to see what a sentence means, look for what is being done with it; how it is being used; the place it takes in the game being played with it.

1 Like
9

people give words (their) meanings.

Words could not possibly give themselves meanings.

10

‘Sometimes’, just about always I will suggest.

Even in this very last sentence of yours this is exactly what I observe and ‘see’.

11

To me, it is not a misunderstanding of language itself, people just have different understandings for the exact same words.

Misunderstandings arise because people do not put enough effort into just obtaining clarification and gaining understanding. people prefer to just pre/assume what was meant, and then carry on as if they already knew.

Very, very True.

Why? How many variations of ‘truth’ do you know of, exactly?

I wish I were asked far more questions than I receive.

What do you mean by ‘whole mind’, exactly?

Why do you refer to others in the “male” perspective only?

‘We’ will ‘see’.

12

But ‘we’ here do have access ‘to you’. In fact, ‘we’ have direct access ‘to you’.

Which, coincidentally, is who ‘you’ are, exactly? As can be proved absolutely True through and with enough questioning and challenging. Otherwise, who are ‘you’, exactly?

Most people here, if not all, do have access to dictionaries. Which is people’s shared meanings are litterally held.

But word, themselves, do not mean things. Again, only people give words, meanings, just like people, only, give meanings, words.

This is like numbers don’t mean things. The word or number three/3 does not mean absolutely anything, until someone gives them ‘a meaning’. And, let ‘us’ not forget, only people can give words and numbers a meaning. For example, i could ‘now’ say and claim the letters and word ‘three’ and the numeral ‘3’ means 2, (or 4) things. And, if i was a writer or editor of dictionaries, and put ‘this meaning’ in them, then ‘this number of things’ would be ‘the meaning’ for the word ‘three’ and the number ‘3’.

Which is EXACTLY what happened when dictionaries were being created and written.

NO word NOR number means anything, until a person gives them ‘a meaning’.

13

The “what I mean by” is important. Say I say “there’s a bat in the cupboard”. Am I referring to a club or a flying mammal? No appeal to the dictionary is going to answer this question.

1 Like
14

If I say “the cat is on the mat,” my internal meaning might be all sorts of things. I might mean today is Sunday. Since there is no way to publicly show me you internal meaning, we have to rely upon your words. Those words then adopt public meaning through use, which we then use together through language. That use together is affected by context, meaning how I use “cat” can vary in differing situations and we might even change our usage over time.

The point here is that the internal meaning in your head has no use for me when I try to decipher the meaning of the language. I’m not suggesting you don’t have all sorts of invisible things going on in your head, but I am saying that what those things are not of value in my deciphering meaning.

If “the cat is on the mat” means internally to you that today is Sunday, yet we interact consistently within our langauge game, then it’s meaning is however it is used, not what happened mysteriously in your brain.

The greater point here is that “internal meaning” does not mean “meaning.” What means “meaning” is use.

15

I haven’t made a list. I’ve only observed the word being used in many different ways.

It’s a language convention. Humans have gotten together and judged it fine to use the generic masculine pronoun when speaking of people generally this way.

It’s similar to saying, “You never know.” The pronoun is not referring to the second-person but rather to generic people.

In both cases ‘he’ and ‘you’ stand in for ‘one’.

16

And that’s just a bat in a cupboard. We are gathered here to discuss much more complex concepts—engaging stuff like truth and justice and even bigger concepts, trying to tie them all together in some kind of meaningful bundle.

17

Hi, Hanover. If it’s a standalone sentence, drifting without speaker, I agree with you. We have to do our best to consult common cultural usage and translate it into our internal model.

Your stock sentence is mostly uncontroversial, but what if it is a bat on the mat?

I think we have to ask the speaker.

Maybe we want to know what sort of mat and whether it is indoors or out. What kind of cat? Is it a stray or your pet tabby?

Unless I am here to answer questions about the mat and cat. In that case, my internal meaning is a rich source of information.

If you have nothing other than the words, yes. It is why I would not like to be a translator of ancient works. All we have are the words. We don’t have access to the speaker.

I don’t consider words to have single fixed meanings.

“Meaning” means whatever we agree it means. Your definition seems one of various legitimate ones, but mine also does, and it’s the one I am talking about here.

18

Your point is obviously true. If the meaning was in the words we could learn a foreign language just by reading it.

A more interesting question to me is why many people still defend the idea that words contain something called “meaning”, that meaning exists in sounds and marks on paper. I worry that the belief is of religious and superstitious origin, or something that must be defended or else their whole worldview collapses.

2 Likes
19

It’s with a heavy heart that I announce the death of semantics. It was an honor and privilege to have worked with him for so many years. We will miss him dearly. May his soul rest in peace.

:headstone:

20

As soon as you commit your thought to words, the words have to carry it. Your thought is no more directly accessible to me than a distal object.

Here, it is context, the words surrounding the word, that disambiguates. Absent context, the words simply lack definite meaning, no matter what might happen to be in your head.