The problem with many religious people is that they want have the pragmatic cake of meaning-as-use but without the ingredients and actions that go into making it. It's not going happen without a lot of gerrymandering.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
not sure what the ingredients of meaning are in this analogy and how that relates to religion. If anything I would say that religious people are prone prone to essentialism (or ‘ingredientism’) and approaching meanings ontologically rather than epistemologically
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub @NegarestaniReza
for my part i think a rapprochement between a functionalist and essentialist account of meaning is v possible especially in semiotics, i think of the old arabic phrase, “المعاني مطروحة في الطريق”. It’s form/content issue (though i anticipate saying so will open another can of
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
Things don't have meanings, concepts have meanings and concepts are inferential webs which are not given in their totality.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
i’d agree with the latter but i’m not sure about the former
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
i'm fairly partial to merleau-ponty's account of red in le visible et l'invisible, which your question brings to mindpic.twitter.com/U45xWC5skb
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
I can go along with this account to a certain extent. But to say '*this* is *red*', you need adversaries in the logical sense. What is 'this' and what does 'red' imply in an inferential interaction framework?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
i think there’s a complex phenomenon that roughly maps onto the concept of ‘red.’ ‘This’ is a deixis (proof if anything that words can mean multiple things). When you explicitly state that you fight against “every sense” of the word “muslim,” that implicates every sense
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub @NegarestaniReza
among the most prominent of which senses is simply a submitter to God. As Goethe said, “if this be Islam, do we not all live in Islam?” So I’m surprised you would emphasize that you “fight against every sense” of the world muslim but believe in God
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This is just anti-cognition 101. I ask what is X? you say X is Y. I ask what is Y? Then you say Y's meaning is resolute if we subsume it under or submit it to Z.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
can you explain what terms x, y, and z are supposed to correspond to in this conversation
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.