Syntax and semantics
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Syntax and semantics
One word can mean many different things to many people. Now imagine if all the problems of philosophy could be resolved via careful clarification of language.
If there is a sign, how are we to assign meaning to it?
Meaning is use. We sometimes forget the meaning of words, and their meaning must evolve and change in time.
This is why the ultimate True philosophy can never be written. We are constantly mutating, as are the very signs and symbols and memories we use to try to pin down an unpinnable world.
When we look back at what we have written, it often ceases to make sense. In this everchanging world, we are not static observers, we go by with the rest of it, and there is no you to cling to it anyway.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
(∀S)(∀t)(True("The tallest President of USA is not a creature with head" S, t) ↔ ~(∃x)(x is the tallest President of USA & ~(∃y)(y is the tallest President of USA & x ≠ y) & x is a creature with head))
For every speaker S, for every time t, "The tallest President of USA is not a creature with head" is true when spoken by speaker S at time t, iff it is not the case that there exists some x such that x is the tallest President of USA, and it is not the case that there exists some y such that y is the tallest President of USA, and it is not the case that x is identical to y; and x is a creature with head.
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Re: Syntax and semantics
Sometimes it's useful, in mathematics especially, and it can be useful to know modal logic, or even read Kripke and Lewis, but anything beyond that is just masturbation imo.
It'a application only becomes very interesting when looking at paradoxes like the liar paradox or other such problems that arise in language.
Russell's theory of descriptions was the solution to Meinong's problem with referring to nonexistent objects.
"The present King of France is bald"
false bc there is no such King. So it's a vacuous truth.
How are we to use the word 'not'? What is it that we are negating of something when we say it is not? Where is this nothing we are referring to? Or even when you want to discuss Russell's paradox and set theory.
Formal logic is useful in these areas. It is useful for logicians to tackle metaphysical problems this way.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 6:16 pm Formal logic can often convolute natural language more than is necessary.
Sometimes it's useful, in mathematics especially, and it can be useful to know modal logic, or even read Kripke and Lewis, but anything beyond that is just masturbation imo.
It'a application only becomes very interesting when looking at paradoxes like the liar paradox or other such problems that arise in language.
Russell's theory of descriptions was the solution to Meinong's problem with referring to nonexistent objects.
"The present King of France is bald"
false bc there is no such King. So it's a vacuous truth.
How are we to use the word 'not'? What is it that we are negating of something when we say it is not? Where is this nothing we are referring to? Or even when you want to discuss Russell's paradox and set theory.
Formal logic is useful in these areas. It is useful for logicians to tackle metaphysical problems this way.
Formal logic is clearer than natural languages. This means that formal logic is better than natural languages in at least some aspects. Analogically speaking, shotguns are used because they are better than knifes in battles. Logicians are using formal logic in many other fields as well as mathematics, metaphysical problems, and the like. So, you, *ReasonMadeFlesh* are wrong in terms of your underestimating formal logic.
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Re: Syntax and semantics
It depends on what you want to use it for.Mosesquine wrote: ↑June 8th, 2018, 9:29 amReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 6:16 pm Formal logic can often convolute natural language more than is necessary.
Sometimes it's useful, in mathematics especially, and it can be useful to know modal logic, or even read Kripke and Lewis, but anything beyond that is just masturbation imo.
It'a application only becomes very interesting when looking at paradoxes like the liar paradox or other such problems that arise in language.
Russell's theory of descriptions was the solution to Meinong's problem with referring to nonexistent objects.
"The present King of France is bald"
false bc there is no such King. So it's a vacuous truth.
How are we to use the word 'not'? What is it that we are negating of something when we say it is not? Where is this nothing we are referring to? Or even when you want to discuss Russell's paradox and set theory.
Formal logic is useful in these areas. It is useful for logicians to tackle metaphysical problems this way.
Formal logic is clearer than natural languages. This means that formal logic is better than natural languages in at least some aspects. Analogically speaking, shotguns are used because they are better than knifes in battles. Logicians are using formal logic in many other fields as well as mathematics, metaphysical problems, and the like. So, you, *ReasonMadeFlesh* are wrong in terms of your underestimating formal logic.
A shotgun isn't the best tool for opening a can of beans. So with many philosophical problems, formal logic is unnecessary.
And I was talking about semantics in general as the meaning given to signs and symbols, not any particular theory of semantics in a formal sense, perhaps I should have been clearer.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 8th, 2018, 10:16 amIt depends on what you want to use it for.Mosesquine wrote: ↑June 8th, 2018, 9:29 am
Formal logic is clearer than natural languages. This means that formal logic is better than natural languages in at least some aspects. Analogically speaking, shotguns are used because they are better than knifes in battles. Logicians are using formal logic in many other fields as well as mathematics, metaphysical problems, and the like. So, you, *ReasonMadeFlesh* are wrong in terms of your underestimating formal logic.
A shotgun isn't the best tool for opening a can of beans. So with many philosophical problems, formal logic is unnecessary.
And I was talking about semantics in general as the meaning given to signs and symbols, not any particular theory of semantics in a formal sense, perhaps I should have been clearer.
Your view that formal logic depends on what persons want to use it for is not right, according to current philosophical tendencies in English-speaking worlds. Fundamentally, formal logic techniques are widely used for avoiding meaningless expressions. Every anglophone philosophers think that so with many philosophical problems, formal logic is necessarily needed. Logic courses held in undergraduate level at colleges and universities are definite evidence.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Syntax and semantics
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
Embedded in the novel is the story of the chapter, and within the story of the paragraph, the sentence, the word and then ... no obtainable “singular bit”.
- RJG
- Posts: 2768
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Syntax and semantics
...bits of sensory experiences (...that make up the words, that make up the sentence, that makes up the paragraph, etc.).Burning ghost wrote:Embedded in the novel is the story of the chapter, and within the story of the paragraph, the sentence, the word and then...
- The Beast
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Syntax and semantics
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
You’re just using words ... that was my point. For something is meant by “sensory” and “experience”, so the attempt to capture and express falls short of some ...RJG wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 12:19 pm...bits of sensory experiences (...that make up the words, that make up the sentence, that makes up the paragraph, etc.).Burning ghost wrote:Embedded in the novel is the story of the chapter, and within the story of the paragraph, the sentence, the word and then...
I’m Kantian this terms it is a fool who claims to know “positive noumenonal”, yet by expressing such a sentiment a fool I am; as are we all.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Syntax and semantics
When you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".Burning ghost wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 1:14 pmYou’re just using words ... that was my point. For something is meant by “sensory” and “experience”, so the attempt to capture and express falls short of some ...
I’m Kantian this terms it is a fool who claims to know “positive noumenonal”, yet by expressing such a sentiment a fool I am; as are we all.
- RJG
- Posts: 2768
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Syntax and semantics
Yes. Agreed. Something is meant of "sensory" and "experience", and from where does this something derive its meaning? ...through sensory experiences!!! (...note: it is not the "words" themselves that dictate meaning, but it is from that which these words 'refer' to).Burning ghost wrote:You’re just using words ... that was my point. For something is meant by “sensory” and “experience”, so the attempt to capture and express falls short of some …
For example, what is meant of "CAT"? ...isn't it the sensory 'audio' experience of "Caa-Aaa-Taa". or the sensory 'visual' experience "C-A-T" associated with the sensory visual and maybe tactile sensation of a soft furry animal? (...resonating from memory, taught to us possibly by our mothers/teachers?) Meanings are the 'association' of sensory experiences.
Sensory experiences are at the ROOT of all meanings, and all that we know (understand). We use "words" merely as a short-hand (short-cut) to communicate these sensations to others. It is the 'meaning' that we wish to communicate, not the silly "word" itself.
Bingo. Succinctly (and very well) stated!ThomasHobbes wrote:When you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Syntax and semantics
But what do you “mean” by “understand”? That is all I was saying. There is a limit we’re forced to work within when parsing this or that item of experience.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 4:32 pmWhen you 'understand' the "just words" then the words are more than "just words".Burning ghost wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 1:14 pm
You’re just using words ... that was my point. For something is meant by “sensory” and “experience”, so the attempt to capture and express falls short of some ...
I’m Kantian this terms it is a fool who claims to know “positive noumenonal”, yet by expressing such a sentiment a fool I am; as are we all.
My suggestion was to regard a “word” as a novel that is comprehended, yet (in this particular analogy) unreadable.
We can of course use universal terms, and we do (such as “such” and “as”), but they are not limited in how they may be applied to any given number of complex and/or contextual circumstances.
Another way to add to this problem would be to say “what cannot be spoken of cannot be spoken of.” Yet some would take this at face value and assume that that which cannot be spoken of is at least being referred to in that very sentence, which it isn’t, because it is merely a feeling around with words about the problem of articulating some thought.
All this is wrapped up in perspectives and applications of the term “absolute” and “accuracy”. They are concepts used to appreciate and which are applicable to communication between individuals.
If you don’t see what I mean it is not because I am incorrect. It is because of how you approach what I say, what “narratives” I apply to my words, and how I have wittingly tried to express something that is on the very edges of intelligible speech.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023