> Okay, I think it is a big jump to say that people who want "real" meanings
> to words are also people who beleive in Platonic form. I am of the first
> group but not the latter. Why can't their be meanings to words: that is,
> why can't words just apply to certain objects with a defined parameter?
Then who makes the parameter? My point is that there is no object,
no thing, that can provide some absolute reference for words without
resorting to some sort of universal, which is a platonic form.
> The problem with taking a Wittgensteinian position here, is that confusion
> arises when people are using words to mean different things.
This is exactly Wittgenstein's point. There is no meaning apart from
use.
>For example, for some people, the term "pornography" means any
>depictions of sexually explicit- that is exposed organs etc,
>material whereas for others it means
> sexually explicit material which degrades or hurts. One must always get
> clear on one's terms.
But which definition of pornography is correct? This is exactly my
point. There is no correct deffinition apart from use, unless
perhaps we could get everyone to subscribe to some sort of pragmatic
theory of meaning, in which the most useful definition is the _true_
one, but then who decides which is the most useful, and for whom?
Yours,
M Lister
Philosophy Student
Boise State University
list3793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx