Precision in thought and its expression in language. The way by which man sees the world is blurred. By that is meant the thought process is not clear, so language which derives from thought is vague.
The criteria for defining help for example. To help your friend and to help your enemy are two different concepts. The word help, and the concept of help is understood differently if applied in a particular way.
So that by mental imprecision which leads to linguistic imprecision, give birth to confusions in thought. Take for instance. To help others. The concept involved is to help, in relation to others. By what is meant by others, your friends, your enemies. and by help to what extend ought help be spared.
Thus imprecision in thought brings about its manifestation in language. When Jesus meant to help the poor. Does he meant all that are poor. or those who are good but poor. So poor is not the criteria for assitance but the inner nature of the people. But due to ambiguity on his part, he has mislead humanity into feeding millions of human tape worm that compose the lowest strata of society. The poor, but not good. so by imprecision in thought he has allowed the traitors to exist, by that is the greatest sin.
There are particulars, but they are linked together by the concept of universals. To understand the world is to study the particulars into a conclusion about the universals and not to come down from the universals and apply strictly to the field of particulars.
All sentences are vague if the meaning is not conveyed entirely to the reader. Thus to have a perfect sentence, one must know what one is thinking. So think before you speak, from particulars upto the universals.
Another derivative is this, why is it good to help others, and not good to help oneself? After all, even oneself need help. so the good and bad is really dependant on the individual. but unclear thought often confuses good and bad into external, so called God given concepts.
Really, God exist because of the human fear of responsibility.
ambiguity is not a fault of natural language, but a feature. Natural language is flexible enough to be specific if and when it is required, perhaps employing specialist jargon, but vague enough that ideas can be expressed succinctly and let context fill in the gaps.
The feature of natural language lies in its fault of ambiguity.
By rotating the order of words, I have constructed a sentence with the opposite meaning of yours. It means that natural language has a feature called ambiguity.
also ambiguity is the fault of both parties. for communication can occur with two people.
and that the ambiguity stem from the fault of both parties. the fault lies with the listener, for he does not question, and the speaker for he does not ask his audience.
So ambiguity does not result in confusion, if you can understand ambiguity then it is no longer ambiguity. the common definition of the word ambiguity is that it aroses confusion for it can not be understood.
no, they are not examples of ambiguity, for cultural references and metaphors have established meaning within the culture itself. it is only ambiguous, i.e confusing for outsiders.
“I feel like an ice cream.” is a technically ambiguous statement as it is open to other interpretations: “I want an ice cream” and “I feel as if I am like an ice cream”. Context is not contained within statements so that it magically makes them unambiguous. Context is, by definition, outside the statement itself.
if you understand the words and grammar and thus the literal meaning but you still do not know what the statement means, then how is this not ambiguous?
or it may have other meaning depending on the set conversational rules between speaker and the listener. Language is like a secret code. it is only understood if both party are privy to understanding the code. so there could be more interpretations, from a non-english speaking POV it is just some scribble and it is not even ambiguous for it is just scribbles. the statement is ambiguous if the rules are not set so it is vague and result in confusion.
what? context give a statement its meaning. but a context like language must have presumed understanding before it can be applied. There are millions of contexts, so how do you know what is the context??? what are you saying? a context can make a statement even more ambiguous for it adds another layer to the meaning of a statement. Context maybe specified within the statement. You may specify your context, like ‘from Medievial point of view, I think…’
because words and grammar must interact in a set way for meaning to exist. e.g apple is red, red is apple though words can be understood in isolation, but together with gramar, it makes no sense unless the community prior establish the rule which our understanding of it fit in.
“Use any means that would not render you physically incapacitated to aid as many people who have less material goods and money than you do to achieve a financial status comparable with what you would be comfortable living with.”
PoR, please remember that i am trying to combat your assertions that ambiguity is a problem.
Is this not obvious? Of course all language is a code. So what’s the problem if both people know it?
You are slightly crazy in a very cute way if you think two people talking in different languages is the same as people talking in a mutually understood language.
Again, if people are both in the same context, whats the problem?
If people are not in the same context you can specify it (well, point to it), using specific language, jargon and the like (but really this is not specifying context as such, it is merely making up for the lack of context).
Set way? WHY!? Words make sense and are learnt by reference to other words and to context (actual things in the environment). They can shift meaning and still make sense by the same methods.
Its a complex game we play, but its not a confusing one.
Your subsequent explanation is inadequate. Help the poor so they become richer or poorer? One can help the poor to be even poorer. and by help, do you mean help yourself. or
are you saying ‘help the poor’ or thinking ‘help the poor’? the statement is very ambiguous and vague.
this is infact, very very vague.
to help people, do you mean help the good as well as the bad people? and by financial status, do you mean real or absolute status. and me comfortable how do i know what is comfortable, for it changes from day to day.
oreso
Ambiguity is a problem because a person can not understand precisely what ambiguity means so language that conveys ambiguity serves no purpose.
if both people know it and use it in the established sense then it is not ambiguous.
no problem, only that it becomes unambiguous so can be understood.
If “words make sense and are learnt by reference to other words and context”, then they are set in a set way.
It is a complex game we play, but it can be not a confusing one if one is not being ambiguous.
except of course, i got you to clarify.