Re: Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?

On 2009-03-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <slrngsku9v.3ni.spamspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ben C <spamspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2009-03-25, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Meaning is one thing. What a name or description or process refers to is
quite a different thing altogether. One is about words and language use,
the other is something about the world outside of language.

OK, but what kinds of names/descriptions/processes have or need
references? And why?


Not sure what you are asking. I have given examples of phrases that have
references. And I have generally extended the idea for this thread into
all elements of sentences that point to features in the non-linguistic
world.

What use would it be for the detective to say

1. The man going into the flat where the blonde lives is your husband

if the various bits did not have references. You are welcome to use
"referents". The words are not important. What is important is that
things in the real world are being pointed to.

Sure, but not _everything_ in a sentence has to point to things in the
world. So what is the system for deciding which things do and which
things don't?

"There is a woman in the flat."

Woman and flat point to things in the world.

"There is not a woman in the flat."

Flat points to something in the world, but woman doesn't. We can say
it's just a certain characteristic of the flat or something.

"A causes B".

A and B point to things in the world. Why does "causes" have to? Why
can't it just be a certain characteristic of the events A and B?

As I said, I can just about make sense of "causes" in this sentence
referring to the cable or mechanism or something.

Why does it have to refer to anything else besides that? How do I tell
in general which words have to refer to things?

"A is bigger than B"

Does "bigger" refer to something? A's size? Or some kind of ontological
bigness?

Surely something in the world makes A bigger than B! It can't just be
true in people's minds.

[...]
You say you're not talking about the meaning of the word, but what else
is there here? What is "philosophical speculation"? How is it related to
philosophical illusion and philosophical mistake?


What can I say that I have not already said? Everything important is
what is left. We can talk till the cows come home about meaning. But in
the end, there are questions about the world itself. Hume, I keep
mentioning him because you have a familiarity with him, was interested
in more than the meaning of words. I think this is a fine tradition and
however I admire Wittgentein, I do not think like his disciples thought,
that philosophy is about clearing up conceptual confusions by attending
to our language.

Conceptual confusions do exist and it is well worth clearing them up and
keeping an eye out for them.

But I don't take the view that that's necessarily all there is-- at
least, I'm not sure of that. If someone wants to construct a technical
or unnatural way of talking about something based on some premises about
how this is a clearer or more justified way of looking at things then
that is very interesting.

But you do have to attend to whether the premises are not just
philosophical illusions or mistakes.
.

Relevant Pages