I am sitting hear thinking and thinking and thinking and have decided to present a potential meaninglessness for philosophical discussion whilst situating the proposition within politics and society. I am being geniune in presenting something valuable by presenting something meaningless and I am presenting something about nothing.
In doing so I suppose I have to present my understanding on what meaning/meaningful or meaningless is.
Meaning for me essentially is about ‘content of substance’, its worth is based on my life’s experience/perception skills and relationship of the contents significance to me. Meaningless is that I have no relationship to the value of the content but that may not necessarily mean it is not meaningful. At this point I wonder if it is possible to actually find a social or political meaninglessness. I would be grateful to exchange with people who would be prepared to have a short dialogue about this.
I like to use Russell’s model here. There is a difference between significance and meaning. If I utter a word in a language you do not understand, it has no significance to you. But it does, or can, have a meaning - just one that you do not understand.
“The winged bear swam in a glass of milk” has no literal meaning, but it makes “sense”, strictly speaking. Absent any further context, it doesn’t really have meaning. But, in a work of fiction, certainly could have meaning. It’s easy to formulate statements with no meaning - certainly with no literal meaning. These same statements can have significance - or not.
Meaning is, I would argue, simple correlation. Meaning is reference - to an already accepted experience. In fiction, we suspend the usual rules - fiction refers to itself, and to our imagination - bits and pieces of our experince, re-arranged.
“God smote the Sodomites” has no meaning to me, but it seems to, to others. Meaning comes and goes - is a cheap commodity. Philosophers have often been fascinated by meaning - they are always flirting with metaphysics. Even if their goal is to reject it.
Yes that is very interesting…what is also interesting is in how we communicate meaning through emotion or action. A woman can speak mandarin but might wave her finger at me in an angry way. I may not understand her but I know she is angry. Or a contemporary artist my produce an abstract shape that I cannot relate to but it may be a shade of yellow that gives me warmth and joy. Is it therefore subjective, the meaning that is?
Let’s say we are initially discussing meaning and language in a theoretical context and we agree with the interesting points that you have made. What would happen if we add human action into the pot, both physical or emotional does that change the theory in the way that you have described or the findings of the theory.
You are then including nonverbal forms of communication. But it is all human behavior. Nothing changes, except that broadening of the list of communicative acts. Of course, we have a dictionary for words. Precision is more difficult to attain with body language, but precision can be difficult even with words.
Do you believe that a true meaningless act or action exists?
In language terms do you believe that the word meaningless is actually a defunct word in itself because pure meaninglessness actually does n ot exist.
If so at what point does something become meaningless? Can you give me an example where it does in total (ie), where there is communal agreement that something is meaningless.
Also on the subject of subjectivity, I have used this term alot in the past but am reluctant to use it these days as I feel that it is lazy in the context of communication using the term gets academics, artists etc out of tricky situations what is your feeling on this.
I hope I am not boring you, thanks for staying with it.
Yes, that’s what I have been saying. many statements, however defined, are quite devoid of literal meaning, and many others can be, depending upon the context. “Meaninglessness” is not a defunct word. It has a meaning, easily understood by most users. It is used often enough. There is no reason to suspect that it is defunct. here, we are just talking about a dictionary meaning.
Meaning has kicked the asses of many philosophers, becasue they confuse the different senses of that word. It’s just a common word. Like every other word, its meaning depends upon the context in which it is used. There is nothing special about this word.
I have given an example of a statement devoid of literal meaning. What sense of the word “meaning” are you using? “I green distant clear” has no meaning.
We are talking about a dictionary meaning but being more analitical in how we use it. I have had to think about this, it’s always my problem. In literal terms yes “I green distant clear” is meaningless unless I choose to give it meaning, if I was walking down the street and saw this on a piece of paper on the ground and picked it up, read it and said to myself what does it mean. It only starts to have meaning by the fact that I am giving it the time of day. Then I suppose it can have countless interpretations, I am sure detectives have had to be in that situation and something like that in such a scenario may well have been used in evidence somewhere to convict someone, so invention and meaning can live together.
I suppose I will try and invent a meaningless act or action, is it possible for this act to exist as meaningless which in effect is a direct translation of your sentence. An 18 year old man gets up in the morning puts on his uniform, goes to work, clocks in, turns on his computor, follows the actions his manager works out for him, clocks out goes home, repeats the process until he retires at 60.
I think I am going nowhere with this but somewhere at the same time. If we use the word meaningless in a conversation is it the same in the context of a meanless action? I still don’t think I am making sense.
The message on the paper doesn’t have meaning just because you are paying some attention to it. Interest (interestingness) is not meaning - although I think now that you and I are using this word differently. While it’s true that even that phrase can mean something in a given context, we can also imagine a context wherein it does not. That does not mean that every statement has meaning, because those different contexts denote that the same phrase can be different statements, when found within different contexts. I think this is a source of some possible confusion.
The same collection of words, written in the same order, can be, in different contexts, two very distinctly different statements. The operative element here is not, then, the collection of words, but the statement that those words make.
I live in a society where I hear the phrase ’ an act meaningless or mindless violence’ is heard and experienced on a regular basis. It is a term delivered to the public through the media. Can you explain the use of the term in the proposition I have presented in the context of how I am positioning it via how I/we experience it through the media.
the media claims it is mindless violence because their liberal (socialist totalitarian) mindset refuses to accept that anyone with a mind to commit a violent act could be mindful (in a politically correct way of course…) unless it is a violent act committed by elf or someone with a left wing political agenda- then it is an act of mindful violence…
Where does the term come from though, we hear it through the media but I am sure the term did not originate there, we all have used it and still use it. Meaningless… violence, if we use it in our daily language it has a purpose or some political association that goes beyond the theoretical that has a relationship to our moral dogmas but it in itself is a pointless term, it in itself is meaningless.
Well, Caroline, we don’t all use that phrase. If you do, perhaps you should examine whether or not it is a mistake to do so. I am not at this time claiming that it is - I am suggesting that philosophy begins with questioning values. Which is, I guess, what you are doing. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking that “erroneous” is the same as “meaningless”.
Philosophy requires that we hone the meanings of everyday words to a precision that ordinary speech does not require. We must learn to speak English (if that’s what we speak) before we can philosophise. That having been said, the media does use certian phrases so often that they become meaningless. Ever notice how all parking seems to be “ample”? Every death is “tragic”? Every guerrilla tactic is “terrorism”? My point is that mediaspeak may be meaningless at times - that doesn’t mean that your own use of a phrase is equally meaningless. But that it might be.
There is no shortcut answer, I think. You may just have to decide for yourself.
The term mindless act of violence comes from losing all self control. Berserk would be the proper word. You can become so completely controlled by your emotions that you lose contol of your rational thinking process. You are driven to do acts that you would not normally do when rationally thinking. You go berserk. After such a fit, you do not recall anything that you did during this time normally. Mindless act of violence overused and improperly used today. It is properly known now as Crimes of passion but, the media dislikes that phrase.
The media uses mindless act because it sounds better and more dramatic than a crime of passion. Crime of passion brings sympathy and compassion not anger or disgust. The media chooses its words to make you passionate about their stories, to bring attention to it. Even if it twists and contorts the truth. Also If you sympathize with the person that did such an act you go against their idea of society… Mindless following lemmings. Control is why they use that phrase and others.