Philosophy Fundamentals: Language, Meaning, and Communication
Wednesday January 7, 2009
Although it might sound trivial or even irrelevant to bring up such basic matters as language, meaning, and communication, these are the most fundamental components of arguments - even more fundamental than propositions, inferences, and conclusions. We cannot make sense of an argument without being able make sense of the language, meaning, and purpose of what is being communicated in the first place.
Read Article: Language, Meaning, and Communication
Comments
“Almost no one constructs normal arguments in a purely logical form. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it complicates the analysis of an argument.”
Thanks for describing me.
Not sure that you take your own instruction to heart. Nonetheless, once you offer up debate material on the WWW, I’d expect you to be a bit more flexible. You seem to me to use your professorial intellect as a weapon and a wall. I’d like to hear you debate Dennis Prager. That would be a treat!
I haven’t seen you set up an argument in any form.
What do you call “debate material”?
Unless and until he ever has anything of value to offer, it would be a waste of time. I’ve written about his fallacious arguments and bigoted falsehoods many times.
“I haven’t seen you set up an argument in any form.”
Now it’s getting comical!
How about in the form of a question - Do you believe in faith? Remember that one?
Dennis Prager debates and speaks and listens to people he disagrees with for a living…I listen to him on the radio everyday, and have met him. He has never, as an intellectual crutch invoked “waste of time” in a conversation… Quite a credit to him. The problem with intelligentsia such as yourself-clarity is the least of your concerns…quite a discredit to yourself.
A question isn’t an argument, not even if it were a clear and intelligible question.
That doesn’t mean he has anything of value to offer.
Neither have I. When someone has nothing new, valuable, or interesting to offer, though, a “waste of time” is the only accurate description of trying to “debate” them.
If you really didn’t think that debating him would be a waste of time, you would have explained how and why he has something of value to offer, thereby rebutting my position. But you didn’t. You simply asserted the opposite and then launched into personal insults.
The only “discredit” here is can be found in your own comments. You have provided no substantive arguments, you have not tried to rebut anyone else’s arguments, you’re frequently off topic, you engage in personal insults, and you try to use “slow typing” as an excuse for not even trying to write clear, intelligible questions.
You refuse to answer basic questions on your own Blog-where you assert to be a specialist on the very topics I ask about… Who is insulting who here? After all, I’m the one here professing to have the least amount of education, yet I can’t get you(highly educated)to answer a question a 10 year old could answer. But don’t get me wrong, I get it, I actually hold your advanced education at fault for you not answering the question.
I have asked for ambiguous questions to be clarified before answering them. Is that really such a burden for you to do — to clarify what you mean and what you are asking? It shouldn’t be, at least if you know yourself what you mean and what you’re asking.
I would never have dreamed that it would insult anyone to ask or expect them to be clear in what they are saying and/or asking.
It is true that advanced education has taught me the value of clarity, so I guess you’re right that preferring to answer clear, intelligible questions is something that can be attributed to my education. You are the first I have ever encountered, though, to have tried to cast aspersions on such a preference. I’m afraid that I never regarded clarity as a vice and ambiguity as a virtue.
Then again, ambiguity is helpful when one’s goal is trying to trap people whereas clarity is helpful when trying to establish meaningful, substantive discussions.
Clarity is also helpful with that very basic task of communication, whereas ambiguity is an enemy of good communication. In that sense, you are “on topic” here by providing a strong example of exactly that which I encourage atheists to avoid.
I don’t believe clarity has to be legal. I believe it has to be evident.
When your child asks you if you love his mommy,do you ask him to be less ambiguous, or do you say yes?
It would seem that you encourage atheists to disengage and obfuscate. I think you learned with me in this venue that doesn’t work to your benefit. I do thank you for replying though, I realize I have wandered a bit and that threatens my livelihood here. Understood, and I’ll try to comply.
Sorry, but I can’t make any sense of that.
I don’t regard the question as ambiguous.
However, are you saying that you should be treated like small child who can’t be expected to reason or express himself well?
So, promoting the importance of clarity is really promoting the importance of obfuscation?
True, I find little benefit trying to get a person to be more clear and comprehensible when they consider clarity a vice and ambiguity and virtue.
I didn’t realize that being tempted with clarity would cause trouble for the career of a carpenter.
Why would there be any trouble with my career as a carpenter? Are you off topic?…;)
I don’t know. You said your livelihood was at risk, and I believe you said you are a carpenter.
“I don’t know. You said your livelihood was at risk, and I believe you said you are a carpenter.”
What I meant by saying “livelihood” was to mean my existence here, on your blog.