POST ONE

[SHATOUSHKA]

as previously mentioned, here is the first
topic taken from captian janks's original
in the Writing Degree Zero thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What I was always interested in was... does any of anything truly mean anything...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


MY OPINION:

short answer: no.

long answer(?): isn't asking such a question
a request for information that would, in
turn, lead you to:
A) an answer which prompts belief (one way
or another) = meaning
B) an answer which prompts doubt (one way
or another) which prompts further questioning
...blah blah blah...(reduce to) = meaning
C) an answer which prompts neither belief
nor doubt, in which case--indifference = meaning
D) an interpretation of any answer = meaning


my question:

does 'meaning' imply 'purpose'?

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[SHATOUSHKA]

as an additional note to the regulars...

PLEASE DON'T TURN THIS INTO ONE OF THOSE
'DEFINTION' THREADS!!!!




------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[doodoo]

Meaning implies purpose? Hmmm...

I would say that meaning implies purpose the same way that "X is a ruminant" implies "X is a mammal". In a sense, a purpose is implemented by choosing a meaning (and the right meaning suggests that the implementation is succesful).

A name is a prison? Yes, but as much as the canvas is the prison of the picture. Perhaps we are enchanted by the power of words and end up to thinking that a prison is always a bad thing.

Hmmm... still pondering...

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

[Hannibal]

I'm gonna play it cool...

I fold.




------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
Word And Voice
Motocross Fanatics
General Philosophy

[SHATOUSHKA]

good idea.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[doodoo]

Is this some kind of conspiracy? What did I say to make you fold, Hannibal? And you, Shattie, why do you applaud Hannibal's attitude?...

Pretty fishy...

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

[SHATOUSHKA]

no, silly.

the comment to hanny was merely in jest.
i didn't want this thread to be jacked into
another tangent.

i'm sure you understand.

certainly nothing to promote your abscence.

now...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A name is a prison? Yes, but as much as the canvas is the prison of the picture. Perhaps we are enchanted by the power of words and end up to thinking that a prison is always a bad thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i like the imagery of the 'prison' directly relating to a canvas, since a canvas can only hold so much.
what i am most interested in-- your final statement.
for some reason, i am reminded that people often complain about things as if they were aware of consequences beyond their vision
(or their idea of a 'quick fix').

but thats just me.



------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[SHATOUSHKA]

this also reminds me of the following:

in a critque of heidegger's enowing, simon blackburn (prof. of philo. at cambridge) quotes heidegger with the statement "making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." to which blackburn states "...intelligibility is a precondition of truth. If you cannot tell whether a string of words says anything, you cannot tell whether it says anything true."

do you agree with blackburn?



------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[doodoo]

Blackburn says: "If you cannot tell whether a string of words says anything, you cannot tell whether it says anything true." I agree with this statement, in the strict sense that such a string of words is neither true nor false - in this sense, such a string is unintelligible. Any question about the truth of such strings is nonsense. Now...

"Intelligibility is a precondition of truth." This is something I won't rush to admit; truth needs this precondition as much as falsity does. 8-5=2 is false, although the elements (8,-,5,=,2) and the logical form (when x interacts with y, the outcome is related to z) are both intelligible. I would suggest that intelligibility is a precondition of knowing whether a statement is true or false.


------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

[This message has been edited by doodoo (edited March 15, 2002).]

[SHATOUSHKA]

seeing that one may feel prompted to ask
a given question from your post, doodoo,
you ever get the feeling that all things
lead back to the same FEW questions?

lol.

consciousness...the biggest circular argument.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis