3 ms·
The idea that any natural language has a meaning outside of the speaker's intent and the listeners reading is... well... it's absurd. However, since I could no
by KirinDave 11y ago
The idea that any natural language has a meaning outside of the speaker's intent and the listeners reading is... well... it's absurd.
However, since I could not possibly write my post knowing you'd be reading, the social burden clear falls on you.
Please consider that.
> I just try to point out the flaws as I see them. I'm not sure anyone else can do better.
I hope this has value for you. It certainly has absolutely none for me.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoNo value for me either if you claim a Straw Man [if you are reading this, and are wondering "wtf is this person talking about?", please, please, go back and read this full thread (although, that has been made more difficult by the overzealous moderators on this site)], but are unable to produce one after many words. Edit: I also don't see the immediate relevance of your post to my specific rebuttals of your prior points. Want to go in-line?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago>The idea that any natural language has a meaning outside of the speaker's intent and the listeners reading is... well... it's absurd. I'm not sure it necessarily is. Currently leading theories may be construed to rule this (absolute absurdity) out. Of course, that argument relies on appropriately defining all of the terms in your statement. I'm more interested in where in my post you think I implied such a conclusion.