I'm having some thoughts and I'm not sure where I can find more information on what they're about.
If the definition of each word is expressed using other words, and their definition is expressed using other words, and so on, then where is the beginning?
I was trying to define my values, and I was referring to the definitions of words to be more sure about said values.
However I only found myself being led down a rabbit hole of definitions, not getting any closer to some kind of concrete 'thing'.
Everything was just a bundle of definitions tied together to make one definition, and each definition in the bundle of definitions branched out to their own bundle of definitions and so on.
Where is the fundamental? What is language based on?
Respect - due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others. Regard - attention to or concern for something. Concern - relate to; be about. Relate - make or show a connection between. Show - be, allow, or cause to be visible. Be - exist. exist - have objective reality or being.
>Where is the fundamental? It starts with perception of the natural phenomena, names are given. The easiest way to "define" a tree or a blossom or a sunrise, or most simple content words, is pictographically Abstraction takes place following perception, concepts arise, names are given. morphemes interact, new words come about, often vague ; languages evolve and die, morphemes remain and change
Michael Nguyen
> What is language based on?
Nothing. Language is completely arbitrary which is why different languages use different words for the same object. There is no clear 'center', according Derrida sign and signification 'float' but never really 'touch'. This doesnt really have to be a problem but since language creates our reallity it means that everything we percieve is only a guess to the true nature of the object.
Some cultures do not make a difference between a Horse and a pony for example. The only thing that really creates the difference in our language is the name. A pony might aswell be a small horse after all? (Neglecting any anatomical differences which we do not percieve)
I hope I wasnt too incoherent here.
Josiah Nelson
>Abstraction takes place following perception, concepts arise, names are given.
This interests me. I can understand how physical objects get named because they are in direct perception, but not so much abstract concepts which are not available to the senses.
Does anybody know any books on the topic?
David Price
>Language is completely arbitrary >everything we percieve is only a guess to the true nature of the object.
This bothers me and I feel like I have to understand it further lest I allow myself to live in a thick fog separating myself and reality...
Jaxson Richardson
The word 'interpretation' fits more now that I think of it.
But you still cannot say anything definite about an object because all your knowlegde is based on language. You can only give some meaning to what you say in a specific context (when the person you speak to uses your language system). I say 'some meaning' because universal comprehension is still absent. You can understand what I write because we are both 'living' in the 'English' system/universe, whatever you call it. Once you move out of this system the English language is useless.
Dont overthink it tho. I feel that you can easily grasp the concept but many people ( including myself) get lost in thought when discussing this.
Ayden Morris
Try speaking without using be or any of its conjugated, am/is/are/was/were/will be/being.
Blake Hernandez
Read any work of philosophy of language to see this assumtpion get blown out of the water
You were going strong until >is only a guess to the true nature of the object There is no "true nature of the object"
The problem is that you're relying on a reality/appearance distinction, with language as the medium.
OP, like, literally just read Wittgenstein or Derrida or Davidson or Rorty or Putnam etc. All this is explained.
Jaxon Martinez
*a reality/appearance distinction that was created by language
Jacob Moore
>then where is the beginning? There isn't. Language is "out there" (I can't remember the name of the group of thinkers looked at this a lot but it's popular in linguistics. Beckett's Malloy trilogy is also based around this somewhat). You can argue that before language there is pure will in which case you have Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Wittgenstein overcomes it somewhat in PI with language games.
I mean the main thrust seems to me to be arguing against the ol "I think therefore I am" solipsism argument. Wittgenstein with his language arguments is p much going "wait a sec, if you can't be sure of your past or your reality how are you even using language?", it's like a fundamental problem underlying a lot of philosophy. And in some ways comparable to Heidegger ' s shit in Being and Time.
Thomas Gutierrez
read into allegory
Cooper Gutierrez
Language is you vibrating air so you can describe and symbolize the world and the actions within the world. Language is based on symbolism. You ever noticed how almost every language, the words for father and mother are very similar, even within the difference in language families and so on? This is probably because the first sounds an infant makes ''mama, dada, gaga, baba'' and shit like that. So the parent begins to associate the sound with themselves. This is an oversimplification, but you get the point.
Benjamin Peterson
>You ever noticed how almost every language, the words for father and mother are very similar, even within the difference in language families and so on? So in Gerogian what is the word for mum and dad? Is it what you expected?
> gosh the word for mother is so similar across language families > Gerogian I'd p much "daddy".
Japanese has also borrowed mama and papa. Haha and chichi are a little different. There's a lot less variation in the word for tea across languages.
I don't disagree that there exist words for young children to refer to their parents tho.
Daniel Hernandez
>Gerogian I'd Seriously wtf. You can work out what I mean
John Davis
I'm saying that the words are almost always two syllables and sound like something a baby vocalizes. I don't remember if this is a legit theory, or if i read it somewhere. But to me its obvious that this is how it developed.
Lucas White
>then where is the beginning?
Gavin Perez
>Haha and chichi are a little different. Actually, modern Japanes ha and chi are derived from pa and ti, so those words originally would be "papa" and "titi".
>There's a lot less variation in the word for tea across languages. Isn't that due to wordloans? Other things like orange also almost always derive from the same word.
Parker Ortiz
>Isn't that due to wordloans? Yeah but there's really only two or three variations out there. That's unusual.
