Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2005, at 19:30:33
In reply to Re: the meaning of meaning » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 16, 2005, at 18:52:50
Philosophers typically distinguish between two meanings of meaning.
Meaning1 is the easiest. Meaning1 is reference where the reference of the term is the class / set of objects in the world that the term is correctly applied to. This is also known as the extension of the term, and the objects in the world are what the term dennotes.
Meaning2 is a bit harder... Meaning2 is aka meaning, or sense, or intension. Meaning2 is more along the lines of a concept that people have.
Typically the two go together... But sometimes we can tease them apart...
As when there are perfectly meaningful terms / expressions that lack reference (e.g., pegasus, the present king of france)
Our concept of gold is (roughly) that of an expensive yellow metal. Fools gold is also a yellow metal, however, and some people may be fooled into paying a lot of money for it ;-) Most of us would probably be tempted to call samples of both 'gold'. But it turns out that the essential nature of gold (to be determined by science) is different from the essential nature of fools gold. We defer to the scientists to correct our application of terms to sets of stuff.
So the reference is supposed to be fixed by the nature of the substance. When we are worried about the nature of water that is a chemical matter so we defer to the chemists. When we are worried about the nature of a biological entity then that is a biological matter so we defer to the biologists.
>I'm sure the meaning of 'water' would vary between say a scientist (chemist), marine biologist, surfer, aboriginal, and farmer.
Here I would say that it is the connotation that varies, and not the dennotation or meaning.
Dennotation: reference. Essential nature to be determined by science.
Meaning: Standard meanings. Concepts that people have. Maybe cluster concepts / lists of superficial properties that tend to covary with the essential properties.
Connotation: Idiosyncratic variations on standard meanings. If there is a group for whom water has taken on a particular religious significance then these speakers might have idiosyncratic connotations associated with the term that aren't part of its dennotation or standard meaning.If the standard meaning vaires between people then it would follow that they wouldn't know what other people using the term are talking about.
If the dennotation varies between people then it would follow that they would be talking about different things.
There are complications though... Mostly with respect to how much the impurities in water actually are important to us. When we ask for a glass of water we most probably do not mean to ask for a glass of H2O and we'd probably be appalled at the taste if we actually got what we asked for!
We might think of gold as a yellow metal but under some conditions gold is not a yellow metal. If it was essential to gold to be a yellow metal then it would follow that if it was not a yellow metal it could not be gold.Golds being a yellow metal is part of our concept or meaning of gold. Maybe it is even more idiosyncratic than that... Maybe it is more a connotation (gold is an expensive yellow metal). None of that is essential to the nature of the substance. If those facts about gold changed gold would still be gold.
Knock a proton off, however, and we'd have changed it into something else ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:541758
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/542659.html