Addendum re: Question about a word not referring to a thing

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > I'd like to get some clarity about a " word " not referring to a " thing. "

> > Here's my present understanding this matter. I can easily see that the

> word

> > " fire " isn't the actual " hot stuff " that burns; and the word " water " is not

> > the " wet stuff " you can drink, and so on. Yet it seems to me that the word

> > " fire " does point to, or refer to the " hot stuff " which is not a separate

> > *thing* or independently existing object, but is a process or aspect of the

> > functioning of *totality* for lack of a better word.

> >

> > Am I missing something?

> >

> > Thanks!

> > Michael

> >

>

> You discuss the matter in the absolute, but language is

> always context bound. Using the term " fire " in a particular

> sentence in a particular context can have a particular meaning

> to a particular person to whom it is spoken (!). So there

> might be a context in which the statement, " Care to start a

> fire? " has a certain particular effect on the person hearing

> it (he might, e.g. start a fire).

>

> There is no " essence " that is 'fire'.

> " Fire " is just a word that has utility in various circumstances.

>

> To think that the " real stuff " is something pointed to by the

> word is a misconception. The significance of the term " fire " ,

> as I said, is always specific and context bound. There is *no

> such thing* as an " absolute meaning " of the word " fire " .

>

> If you feel totally deflated by this explanation, then you

> probably get it. There tends to be a fascination with " essences "

> and pure abstractions. Such talk, though, is never the context

> of real language use. Such talk is, as Wittgenstein so often said,

> language gone on a holiday.

>

> Bill

>

 

Thought to add:

 

And the bottom line, Michael, is not that the word

does not refer to a " thing " , but that the word

DOES NOT REFER TO ITS MEANING. The meaning of a word

is in its *use*, not in something " pointed to " .

 

That's a tough one to get, but ever since Wittgenstein

that has been really nailed down. That the meaning of

a word is " something " corresponding to the word is one

of the most widely shared misconceptions going.

 

Bill