It seems likely that only languages that allow us to attribute validity or truth can also allow us to attribute meaning: can allow us to say when a gesture or signal is being appropriately ('truly') used, or - more important - can allow us to state the conditions under which a gesture would be being appropriately used.
Is this a radical suggestion: that a gesture or signal has meaning if it can be translated into a language that can be used to (at least partly) say what its meaning is? Does this link having meaning too closely to being able to attribute meaning? Some reflection on the use of 'to mean' makes me think not, but ...
So we have behaviour; then we have games - in which behaviour may or may not be within the rules of the game; then we have language games, in which we have truth and falsehood - which have some relationship with the rules of the game, but which may not just reflect them; then we have language games in which truth and falsehood can be explicitly attributed, and in which concepts like 'true' and 'meaningful' have a role.
In this third group, liar paradoxes can be formulated, open question arguments arise, and we can do philosophy: e.g. by making statements like those in this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment