Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sense and reference

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

When I think or say the word "elephant" does the concept of "elephant" that I have in my mind mean or refer to all instances of elephants which the concept subsumes? In other words, is my concept of "elephant" comprised of the definition of what it means to be an elephant (its meaning), or does my concept refer to all elephants which exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITOE p. 40: "A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents". This shifting of attention to concepts eliminates a lot of the wasted ink that had to do with peculiarities of words. FYI the sense / reference distinction doesn't have any meaning. Definitions depend on (follow) concepts, i.e. they are the final step in concept-formation. Thus the concept elephant consists of (not "refers to") all elephants, and given such a concept, "a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under (the) concept" -- a definition -- can be created. This, BTW, is true even without you actually speaking or thinking the word "elephant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI the sense / reference distinction doesn't have any meaning... the concept elephant consists of (not "refers to") all elephants

Not sure what you mean by "consists of", but doesn't Peikoff also state on pg. 99 the following: "... a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known" when trying to play off the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? And when one speaks of "means" ("meaning"), one does so in respect to its sense, not its reference.

As far as I'm concerned, the sense/reference distinction does have meaning because Peikoff explicitly brings it up in relation to concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by "consists of",
Okay; and I'm not sure what you mean by "refers". Given that you don't have anything specific in mind by saying "refers" versus "means", then I would suppose that the issue has been clarified for you, and you better understand concepts. You would presumably agree that there isn't really any difference between "sense" and "reference", unless you mean "linguistic descriptive statement" versus "existents". If that is what you mean, then the meaning of a concept is most certainly the existents and not the linguistic descriptive statement, as Peikoff makes clear. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Okay; and I'm not sure what you mean by "refers". Given that you don't have anything specific in mind by saying "refers" versus "means", then I would suppose that the issue has been clarified for you, and you better understand concepts. You would presumably agree that there isn't really any difference between "sense" and "reference", unless you mean "linguistic descriptive statement" versus "existents". If that is what you mean, then the meaning of a concept is most certainly the existents and not the linguistic descriptive statement, as Peikoff makes clear. Right?

Well I dont want to defend Fregean theories of language since I dont agree with them, but what youve said would imply that concepts like 'unicorn' or 'dragon' are meaningless since there is nothing to which they refer/consist. This was the one of the original motivations for making the sense/reference distinction: concepts can have no physical referents but still be meaningful, hence their meaning must lie in something other than their referring to objects.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I dont want to defend Fregean theories of language since I dont agree with them, but what youve said would imply that concepts like 'unicorn' or 'dragon' are meaningless since there is nothing to which they refer/consist. This was the one of the original motivations for making the sense/reference distinction: concepts can have no physical referents but still be meaningful, hence their meaning must lie in something other than their referring to objects.

Prior to the invention of the electrical resistance glow lamp, there were none, but the -concept- of the glow lamp existed and was meaningful. It lead to the actual invention of said lamp. In the world of invention, the concept of the thing invented pre-exists the invention. If that were not the case, all inventions would be fortuitous blunders or accidents.

Concepts are open ended. They can be stretched and extended to areas where there are no referents. New ideas can be conjured up from old ideas by metaphor and analogy. That is one of the ways we get from where we are to where we ain't. Another way of making this leap or extension is to play the What If game.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I dont want to defend Fregean theories of language since I dont agree with them, but what youve said would imply that concepts like 'unicorn' or 'dragon' are meaningless since there is nothing to which they refer/consist.
No, but I understand the confusion. What "unicorn" refers to is not a tangible physical object, but a mental pbject. This is the main mistake of linguistic philosophy, in equating "referent" with "tangible physical entity having mass". The concept of "referent" is much broader than traditional philosophy has maintained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the invention of the electrical resistance glow lamp, there were none, but the -concept- of the glow lamp existed and was meaningful. It lead to the actual invention of said lamp. In the world of invention, the concept of the thing invented pre-exists the invention. If that were not the case, all inventions would be fortuitous blunders or accidents.

So, there was a concept of "world wide web" (i.e. Internet) before it was invented? Nonsense. That's what invention is - creating something that hasn't existed before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there was a concept of "world wide web" (i.e. Internet) before it was invented? Nonsense. That's what invention is - creating something that hasn't existed before.

Electromagnetic communication preexisted the WWW. It all started as a practicality with Morse and Gauss (electromagnetic telegraph). And these inventions were the realization of the magnetic field discovered by Orstead and characterized by Faraday and Maxwell. Computerized electronic communication was instantiated by the all electronic telephone switching system which the transistor made possible. In fact the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories precisely to make all electronic phone switching possible and practical.

The key concept used by Berners Lee for WWW is the -hyperlink- which was previously conceived by Vanever Bush back in 1948. So the -ideas- that made WWW possible preexisted WWW. The idea must always come before the physical realization of the idea. Which means there are meaningful concepts that do not have physical referents. It sounds a little Platonic, but that is how it goes.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electromagnetic communication preexisted the WWW. It all started as a practicality with Morse and Gauss (electromagnetic telegraph). And these inventions were the realization of the magnetic field discovered by Orstead and characterized by Faraday and Maxwell. Computerized electronic communication was instantiated by the all electronic telephone switching system which the transistor made possible. In fact the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories precisely to make all electronic phone switching possible and practical.

Of course, one idea was built on another idea.

But this is wrong. Electromagnetic communication != WWW.

Using transistor for switches != computerized communication.

Just b/c an idea was based on some previous idea doesn't mean, nothing new was created.

The key concept used by Berners Lee for WWW is the -hyperlink- which was previously conceived by Vanever Bush back in 1948. So the -ideas- that made WWW possible preexisted WWW. The idea must always come before the physical realization of the idea. Which means there are meaningful concepts that do not have physical referents. It sounds a little Platonic, but that is how it goes.

I think you missed my point.

Of course, one must think of an idea and then make it.

The point is that somebody had to invent the idea, which didn't exist before.

Otherwise, you might as well claim that Newton didn't invent anything new at all with his laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...