Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

Because a word is inspearable from its connotations.

The connotations a word may have in any particular mind may not be separable from it in that mind, but those are quite separable from its denotative meaning. The barista will still deliver the cup of coffee ordered regardless of whatever connotations she may attach to "coffee."

When she does deliver a cup of coffee. She might not. And what she thinks she's delivering might not at all be what you think she's delivering even when you're both satisfied with the transaction. And the world at large doesn't assign any denotation to terms, of course. Only people do.

[Belindi]

It's a simple fact of a good trainer that they don't presume the trainee knows the local culture. In other words, people can and do learn from experience. Learning from experience includes the learning to substitute one culture for another.

Coffee and tea are not sentient. We can't empathise with coffee or tea, and never will. Sentience is a biological fact as we know state of the art biology. So sentience is where the cultural relativity buck stops.

???

I'm not sure what all that has to do with the issue under discussion, i.e., whether the denotative meanings of words are distinct from their (subjective) connotations.

Subjective presumptions , if they are not recognised as such, make it difficult for the subject to understand the meanings and the world view of others.

However if cultural relativity is the only aim there is the danger that a value that is actually a better value is sidelined. I named sentience as the criterion of moral value.

Subjective connotations originate within cultures of belief. Employees often need to know more than the technique of what they are doing; they also need to be taught prevalent values which are usually connoted not denoted.

[GE Morton]

When she does deliver a cup of coffee. She might not.

If she does not her employment there will be brief.

And what she thinks she's delivering might not at all be what you think she's delivering even when you're both satisfied with the transaction.

I have no idea what she thinks she's delivering, and don't care. I only know what she does deliver.

And the world at large doesn't assign any denotation to terms, of course. Only people do.

Yep. Specifically, the person who coined the word. If other speakers find that word useful they adopt it, with its given denotation. Which doesn't preclude someone later using the same word with a different denotation, e.g., "ball" (a spherical object), or "ball" (a formal dance).

[GE Morton]

Subjective presumptions , if they are not recognised as such, make it difficult for the subject to understand the meanings and the world view of others.

World views, yes. Denotative meanings, no. Per the example I gave earlier, "cop" may have different connotations for different people, but they all agree on its denotation.

However if cultural relativity is the only aim there is the danger that a value that is actually a better value is sidelined. I named sentience as the criterion of moral value.

The subject was the denotative meanings of words, not values. Those meanings are not culturally relative; they're relative to a speech community, which may embrace several cultures and subcultures.

[Belindi]

Subjective presumptions , if they are not recognised as such, make it difficult for the subject to understand the meanings and the world view of others.

World views, yes. Denotative meanings, no. Per the example I gave earlier, "cop" may have different connotations for different people, but they all agree on its denotation.

However if cultural relativity is the only aim there is the danger that a value that is actually a better value is sidelined. I named sentience as the criterion of moral value.

The subject was the denotative meanings of words, not values. Those meanings are not culturally relative; they're relative to a speech community, which may embrace several cultures and subcultures.

Who then arbitrates what a cop is? The cop's employer I suppose . Whoever it is the denotation is defined by some man or men.
In past times tomatoes were classed as love apples. Pommes de terre is French for potatoes. Two centuries ago tea was that which the mistress kept locked up in its secure box, if you were a servant.

[GE Morton]

Who then arbitrates what a cop is? The cop's employer I suppose .

No arbitration is required. The term denotes a police officer, i.e., a government employee charged with enforcing the law, investigating violations, and making arrests --- a definition understood by virtually everyone who uses the term.

Whoever it is the denotation is defined by some man or men.

Of course. Language is a human artifact. All words are coined and defined by humans.

In past times tomatoes were classed as love apples. Pommes de terre is French for potatoes. Two centuries ago tea was that which the mistress kept locked up in its secure box, if you were a servant.

Whatever historical facts may be true of tomatoes, and regardless of whether they have different names in other languages, the term denotes the edible fruit of a certain family of plants, by every English speaker who uses it literally.

[Belindi]

Who then arbitrates what a cop is? The cop's employer I suppose .

No arbitration is required. The term denotes a police officer, i.e., a government employee charged with enforcing the law, investigating violations, and making arrests --- a definition understood by virtually everyone who uses the term.

Whoever it is the denotation is defined by some man or men.

Of course. Language is a human artifact. All words are coined and defined by humans.

In past times tomatoes were classed as love apples. Pommes de terre is French for potatoes. Two centuries ago tea was that which the mistress kept locked up in its secure box, if you were a servant.

Whatever historical facts may be true of tomatoes, and regardless of whether they have different names in other languages, the term denotes the edible fruit of a certain family of plants, by every English speaker who uses it literally.

That is contingent on tomatoes and lots of other things.It is not necessarily so, but is partly a matter of tomatoes being popular marketable commodities. The denotative function of 'tomato' is historical but not eternal.

[Terrapin Station]

And the world at large doesn't assign any denotation to terms, of course. Only people do.

Yep. Specifically, the person who coined the word. If other speakers find that word useful they adopt it, with its given denotation. Which doesn't preclude someone later using the same word with a different denotation, e.g., "ball" (a spherical object), or "ball" (a formal dance).

No, each person does. What you're still not understanding is that words, pointing, other gestures, etc. can not refer to anything in themselves. In every single case, there's a requirement that a person think about the words, pointing, gestures, etc. in an intentional, denotational manner. That process isn't transparent, and can't be made transparent, because the words, pointing, other gestures, etc. can not refer to anything in themselves, and that's all we can share. We can't share our mental, intentional, denotational thinking.

[GE Morton]

Whatever historical facts may be true of tomatoes, and regardless of whether they have different names in other languages, the term denotes the edible fruit of a certain family of plants, by every English speaker who uses it literally.

That is contingent on tomatoes and lots of other things.

"Contingent on tomatoes"? What contingency is that? On a tomato being a tomato?

If we line up 100 fluent English speakers and present them with a tomato, an pear, and a banana, and ask to which fruit the word "tomato" refers, do you doubt that all of them would point to the tomato?

It is not necessarily so, but is partly a matter of tomatoes being popular marketable commodities.

No. It only depends upon knowledge of the meaning of that word. The popularity of the fruit is irrelevant. Do you doubt the same would be true of, say, the word "snake" and a choice between a snake, a bullfrog, and iguana (none of them being very popular as pets)?

The denotative function of 'tomato' is historical but not eternal.

Yes. I never claimed it was eternal. The denotative meaning of a word is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time.

[GE Morton]

What you're still not understanding is that words, pointing, other gestures, etc. can not refer to anything in themselves.

Of course I understand that. Where have I said otherwise? Words are coined by people. Some of them are used to name things, or classes of things --- verbal tags attached to things by people. Those things are the denotative meaning of that word, as assigned by the person who coined it and subsequently adopted by other speakers.

In every single case, there's a requirement that a person think about the words . . .

Not much thinking is required to coin a word, and even less to understand one once it is learned. Some mental activity is required for both those tasks, but the details of that process are irrelevant to the meaning stipulated for that word.

. . . pointing, gestures, etc. in an intentional, denotational manner.

The pointing and gesturing are behaviors, and are perfectly empirical and transparent. Whatever may be the pointer's intentions are also irrelevant to the meaning evidenced by those behaviors.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course I understand that. Where have I said otherwise? Words are coined by people. Some of them are used to name things, or classes of things ---

What exactly any term, gesture, etc. is picking out, denotatively, depends on how individuals are thinking about the reference in question, and that can't be shared.

Not much thinking is required to coin a word, and even less to understand one once it is learned.

There's no way to know that any two people are thinking the reference of any term etc. the same way, because you can't observe their thinking, and the terms themselves don't reference anything.

Some mental activity is required for both those tasks, but the details of that process are irrelevant to the meaning stipulated for that word.

The meaning IS the details of the mental process. Sounds, marks, gestures, etc. do not have intentionality, they can't by themselves make any associations.

The pointing and gesturing are behaviors, and are perfectly empirical and transparent.

Sure, but they can't reference anything, they don't have intentionality, etc.

[Belindi]

That is contingent on tomatoes and lots of other things.

"Contingent on tomatoes"? What contingency is that? On a tomato being a tomato?

If we line up 100 fluent English speakers and present them with a tomato, an pear, and a banana, and ask to which fruit the word "tomato" refers, do you doubt that all of them would point to the tomato?

It is not necessarily so, but is partly a matter of tomatoes being popular marketable commodities.

No. It only depends upon knowledge of the meaning of that word. The popularity of the fruit is irrelevant. Do you doubt the same would be true of, say, the word "snake" and a choice between a snake, a bullfrog, and iguana (none of them being very popular as pets)?

The denotative function of 'tomato' is historical but not eternal.

Yes. I never claimed it was eternal. The denotative meaning of a word is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time.

Tomato is variously defined by botanists and cooks , so the definition of it is contingent on who defines it.

Pointing at something is not defining it. Human language is a symbolic system, not an ostensive system that conveys meaning by pointing at something.

Most people I know would tell the difference between an apple a pear and a banana, but people did not always use the same categories. Even now there are discussions whether or not to call a tomato a fruit or a vegetable. A small child might sort things into groups based on whether or not he likes them, or whether or not they resemble doggies.

"The meaning of a word is what we declare to be the meaning of a word" is that it ?I don't think so, except in specially arbitrated cases such as professional jargon, scientific terminology, or political correctness.

Yes. I never claimed it was eternal. The denotative meaning of a word is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time.

I agree. Do you also agree the denotative meaning of a moral tenet is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time ?

[Sculptor1]

To get the thread back on track -
Morality is a thing that cannot be called "objective" in and of itself.

[Sculptor1]

Morality is a set of abstract viewpoints and normative claims.
When it comes to making statements about them, or setting rules about them we can only be relatively objective. That is to say that we can attempt to make claims and assert viewpoints that seek to abslove ourselves of personal opinions or bias, by attempting to make generalisation.
In practice this is near to impossible, and the result is usuall a laughable claim about being objective which you do not have to look very far to find others also pretending to be objective with contrary views.
As we have seen time and again, those few who have made this attempt have offered us a horrifying outlook on the world which is so obviously personally biased to their own lived experience as to be risible in the extreme.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is a set of abstract viewpoints and normative claims.
When it comes to making statements about them, or setting rules about them we can only be relatively objective. That is to say that we can attempt to make claims and assert viewpoints that seek to abslove ourselves of personal opinions or bias, by attempting to make generalisation.
In practice this is near to impossible, and the result is usuall a laughable claim about being objective which you do not have to look very far to find others also pretending to be objective with contrary views.
As we have seen time and again, those few who have made this attempt have offered us a horrifying outlook on the world which is so obviously personally biased to their own lived experience as to be risible in the extreme.

I agree with much of this. Though it isn't an argument against the objectivity of morality - which is sound for other reasons - it does highlight a consequence of belief that morality is objective.

People who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - always think their own moral opinions are facts. Unsurprisingly. And they think this justifies their imposition of their moral opinions of everyone else. Religious leaders and drones have been doing it for millennia - and still are, sadly, in many parts of the world, including the USA.