Ask a Philosopher

[Terxpahseyton]

What is "meaning"?

Nothing. And everything.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, that's the entire point. It's a form of radical Platonism.

Neutral Monism is NOT a form of Platonism, since Platonism necessarily is idealistic in the epistomological sense. Neutral Monism holds that existence is not necessarily material or mindbased.

 

[Borachio]

Probably the most straightforward cited answer in this thread.


(Of course, this is assuming that you want the practical definition of meaning and not the dictionary definition)

Well. The first one is the dictionary definition of meaning, I'd have thought.

(Is it possible to say what meaning is without using the word "mean"?)

And, for the second, how does one distinguish between what is said or done, and what is meant?

 

[aelf]

Well. The first one is the dictionary definition of meaning, I'd have thought.

(Is it possible to say what meaning is without using the word "mean"?)

That's the point. A dictionary definition of meaning couldn't have included the word 'mean'.

And, for the second, how does one distinguish between what is said or done, and what is meant?

In short, one has to do with the intentions of the actor/author or, in other words, the propositional attitudes and mental states that accompany the action/language; the other has to do with how recipients interpret words or actions.

 

[Borachio]

Ah, you're right. If you google "meaning definition", Google, itself comes up with

meaning
/ˈmiːnɪŋ/
noun
noun: meaning; plural noun: meanings
1.
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

That's hardly a dictionary, though. Dictionaries tend to use words like sense, significance, and so forth.

 

[aelf]

I suppose you could get away with saying "mean" in defining 'meaning' in a dictionary. If people don't know what 'mean' means, they can always look up its meaning, if you get my meaning.

 

[Borachio]

Does meaning have a wider sense?

Is there a sense in which my life, for instance, has a meaning?

 

[Atticus]

"Think" doesn't seem very thorough, though. At least, not as much as I'd been hoping.

If you want historical introduction, check the recommended/required reading of some university philosophy department. My alma mater for example has History of Philosophy by Marias as their course reading.

 

[Mouthwash]

Is verificationism still taken seriously at all in academic discourse?

 

[Perfection]

Does free will exist?

 

[Borachio]

What is philosophy?

 

[Angst]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Philosophy-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0231079893

Philosophy is the conception (creation) and analysis of concepts (Danish: begreber is English: concepts, but I don't know the book's English terminology)

 

[Borachio]

It isn't the love of wisdom, then? As its name might suggest.

 

[Mouthwash]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Philosophy-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0231079893

Philosophy is the conception (creation) and analysis of concepts (Danish: begreber is English: concepts, but I don't know the book's English terminology)

I prefer Wikipedia's definition "the study of general and fundamental problems."

 

[Tahuti]

What is philosophy?

Welcome to the wonderous world of metaphilosophy!

 

[Mouthwash]

How do falsificationism and abductive reasoning work? I really don't understand them. How do they "tell" you anything if you can't draw any conclusions? If I take X as a hypothesis, and apply as many tests to X as I can, I am still no closer to showing X to be probably true. Falsificationism seems somewhat workable in local affairs, but once we have eliminated in some way any possibility, n - 1 possibilities remain.

 

[Tahuti]

Yet, you have effectively found the essence of falsificationism. It isn't that there isn't such a thing as the truth but rather, that it is very hard to find and confirm. So when we have an hypothesis, we just try to unconfirm (e.g. falsify) it as much as possible, with the likelihood of being true increasing as it survives more tests.

The antithesis of falsificationism, positivism, states that true statements have to be "confirmed": If it cannot be seen, then a positivist is likely to deem it non-existent. Put a positivist in a room full of white swans, trying to look for black swans, and he will say that black swans simply do not exist. So falsicationism was devised to combat this absurdity.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yet, you have effectively found the essence of falsificationism. It isn't that there isn't such a thing as the truth but rather, that it is very hard to find and confirm. So when we have an hypothesis, we just try to unconfirm (e.g. falsify) it as much as possible, with the likelihood of being true increasing as it survives more tests.

Isn't that just Bayesianism?

 

[lovett]

Is verificationism still taken seriously at all in academic discourse?

No.

Does free will exist?

Yes.

There are many different conceptions of free will. Some are incoherent. Some are not incoherent. At least one of the non-incoherent conceptions of free will is instantiated in our world.

What is philosophy?

Metaphysics,
Epistemology,
Ethics,
Aesthetics,
Logic,

Amongst others. There is no good account of philosophy in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

How do falsificationism and abductive reasoning work?

They are distinct.

Abductive reasoning is reasoning to the best explanation. In this sense, it is just the most general type of reasoning.

Falsificationism describes one way of reasoning to the best explanation. It tells you which explanations are not the best explanations (because probably false). It is not, as I suspect you surmise, adequate as a full account of abductive reasoning, or even just scientific reasoning.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There are many different conceptions of free will. Some are incoherent. Some are not incoherent. At least one of the non-incoherent conceptions of free will is instantiated in our world.

Does the existence of so many different conceptions of free will make free will an unhelpful term?