Do words have a fixed meaning?

[skanwmatos]

I am going to resurrect this thread to try, once again, to illustrate what I am trying to express.

I am going to ask the forum a question. I want the simplest, shortest, most concise answer you can give. I don't want an essay or a lengthy tome, just a short concise answer. How you answer will be used to illustrate my point.

Here is the question:

What is "love?"

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
What is "love?"

A verb,
indicating the actions of the
loving when acting in the best interest
of the one loved.

 

[Trotter]

There is no simple, short, or concise answer to the question. At least not to me. But I'll try.

Love is an emotion.
Love is a physical feeling.
Love is an object.
Love is an aim.
Love is a verb.
Love is a noun.
Love is everything that we hold dear.

Best stop there. Starting to wax poetic.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Helen]

Agape love: caring for another above caring for yourself regardless of the response of the other or the character of the other.

Phileos (spelling?) love: mutual, brotherly affection, caring.

Erotic love: sexual love

Any of them can be a noun or a verb.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Helen:
Agape love: caring for another above caring for yourself regardless of the response of the other or the character of the other.

Phileos (spelling?) love: mutual, brotherly affection, caring.

Erotic love: sexual love

Any of them can be a noun or a verb.

You missed one more Greek.

Storge love: parental love.

 

[skanwmatos]

4 responses all illustrating in their own way the problems we have communicating.

I will wait a while for additional responses before posting my explanation of the question.

 

[Helen]

I KNEW there was a fourth, but I couldn't remember it! thanks!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Do words have fixed meanings?

How many of you have noticed the use of the word "bad" as a complement?

Hey, that was one bad post up there man, congratulations!

Has that made the dictionary yet?

Dictionary writers freely confess they follow usage, they don't determine usage. Just read their introductions if you don't believe me.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Storge love: parental love.

I don't know how to break the news to you but "storge" refers to the animal instinct to care for their young. It is not applicable to humans.

 

[Johnv]

Skan, storge most definitely applies to human parents. It can also beused to describe animal parental nurturing, but not exclusively. It is indeed applicable to humans. Interestingly, however, it is the one word that is absent from the NT.

 

[skanwmatos]

Well, it looks as if only 3 people had the courage to post real answers, so I will not wait any longer for additional responses. (Although I must say that the lack of response is indicative of most of the Baptist Board, unfortunately.)

"What is "love?"

"Love" is a word. That's all. The word is not the emotion. The word is not the feeling. The word is not the act. The word is not the state. The word is just a word. Just as "the map is not the territory."

"Love" is a semantic symbol which may, or may not, mean the same thing to some people (but in this case we can see there is little agreement on the meaning of the word "love").

Now to the point. People read into the question what they are expecting to read. I did not ask "What does the word "love" mean?" I asked, simply, "What is 'love'?" All 3 of the serious responders made a mental assumption that I was asking something which I was not, in fact, asking. And even when they answered what they thought I was asking, they did not agree on the "intrinsic meaning" of the word "love."

This case in point illustrates what I was trying to show you earlier. Our perceptions are flawed (the readers read what they thought the question was rather than what the question really was) and the mental processing of that flawed perception is equally flawed. Precision in both perception and processing is something which must be practiced in order for us to become effective communicators.

Now apply all of that to the bible translation question and you will see, hopefully, that understanding what a translator puts on paper is a much more difficult task than most of us incorrectly assume. We often lack enough information to make a logical conclusion, but jump to one anyway. And we, as a people, have become so insular and proud, thinking we already know it all, that we no longer bother to investigate the grammar and syntax used by the translators, but assume they have exactly the same background and experience we do, and thus the semantic content of the words they chose are exactly the same as we understand them to be.

In other words, we not only don't know the answer, we don't even understand the question!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Remember this . . .
love means nothing to a tennis player.

 

[HankD]

Cute Paul.

HankD

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Well, it looks as if only 3 people had the courage to post real answers, so I will not wait any longer for additional responses. (Although I must say that the lack of response is indicative of most of the Baptist Board, unfortunately.)

"What is "love?"

"Love" is a word. That's all. The word is not the emotion. The word is not the feeling. The word is not the act. The word is not the state. The word is just a word. Just as "the map is not the territory."

"Love" is a semantic symbol which may, or may not, mean the same thing to some people (but in this case we can see there is little agreement on the meaning of the word "love").

Now to the point. People read into the question what they are expecting to read. I did not ask "What does the word "love" mean?" I asked, simply, "What is 'love'?" All 3 of the serious responders made a mental assumption that I was asking something which I was not, in fact, asking. And even when they answered what they thought I was asking, they did not agree on the "intrinsic meaning" of the word "love."

This case in point illustrates what I was trying to show you earlier. Our perceptions are flawed (the readers read what they thought the question was rather than what the question really was) and the mental processing of that flawed perception is equally flawed. Precision in both perception and processing is something which must be practiced in order for us to become effective communicators.

I don't think you make your piont, Skan. The reason I did not answer was that I figured it was some kind of sneaky trap, which it was. You should know that in ordinary speech, if someone asks, "What is love," the person questioned will take it to mean, "define love" or "what do you think love is?" When my son asked me questions like, "What is (fill in word he did not know?" when he was little, I did not say, "____ is a word." I explained what the word meant.

Your argument about the word not being the thing and our faulty perceptions is very similar to the arguments I get from atheists and skeptics sometimes. No, the word is not the emotion or feeling but it is the means of communicating what we recognize as love.

If you take this kind of thinking too far, then it comes out that we cannot communicate at all. How can we if our perceptions are so darn faulty? How can you even give an order in a restaurant? How can you take a class in school? How can you write anything on the BB? Why bother talking to all of us so blinded by our perceptions at all?

Once again, you are being self-refuting. Maybe it's just your faulty perception that perception is faulty. And if is is true, how can you know it is true since your perception is faulty? How can we even understand what you mean if our perception is faulty?

Bottom line -- God wrote to us in words. If God expects us to understand words, then I think we can figure it out even with all our problems and faulty perceptions, if we have them.

 

[skanwmatos]

<sigh> Once again, Marcia, you completely missed the point.

 

[Marcia]

Well, since my perception is flawed, how am I supposed to understand you? Oh, wait -- your perception is flawed, too!

Skan, do you think words are mere noises? I am asking seriously. Do words mean only what the person who says them thinks they mean? And only what the persons who hears them thinks they mean?

Believe me, what you said above I have heard before. It is NOT new to me.

And you still don't get it that to say, "Our perceptions are flawed" is a self-refuting statement. You are saying that through the filter of your own flawed perception.

 

[skanwmatos]

Marcia, I am sorry I confused you so badly. I really thought most of the people on the forum had the ability to see beyond their own shortcomings and realize what language experts have known for decades, thalamic response destroys communication while cortical response enhances communication. I obviously overestimated at least some of the readers of this thread.

 

[HankD]

Well excuse us your higness!
I agree with Marcia, it was a trick question. Also IMO most people feared your skulduggery and retaliations for their benighted answers.

Oh well, skulduggery is only a word, so no harm.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

No, it wasn't a trick question. It was paraphrased from the syllabus published by the Institute of General Semantics, and was used to illustrate the fact that our presuppositions affect our perceptions and responses.

For Marcia to say the hard science of General Semantics is "self-refuting" is a prime example of a serious failure to understand.

One of the authors mentioned, Alfred Korzybski, is considered the Einstein of communication theory.

S.I. Hayakawa was President of San Francisco State College in the '60s, then U.S. Senator from California in the '70s. He authored many books and articles dealing with language and semantics, including "Language In Thought and Action." Dr. Hayakawa was editor of their journal, "A Review of General Semantics."

Robert A. Heinlein was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a prolific writer.

Buckminster Fuller was a fellow of the Institute and taught there in the 1950s.

These men represent some of the very best minds the world has ever produced and all were associated with the Institute.

Just because you can't understand the information does not mean the information is incorrect. And, because you could not answer the question correctly, you must believe it was a trick question. Your emotions won't allow you to be honest with yourself and say, "Wow! That's right! My assumptions led me astray!" Instead you accuse me of trickery and skulduggery. That is a classic example of the thalamic (emotional) response I have been talking about all along.

Thank you for your participation. It was very revealing.

 

[HankD]

Just because you can't understand the information does not mean the information is incorrect. And, because you could not answer the question correctly, you must believe it was a trick question.

Skan you completely missed the point.
Just because you misunderstood the irony, sarcasm and humor of my post and the fact that I was actually agreeing with you doesn’t mean it wasn’t effective in what I meant it to do (as a secondary purpose as well, to which you predictably accommodate a subdued "thalamic" answer).

But on the surface of it (since you brought up the issue): The name (and presumably the venue) of your post is do words have a fixed meaning and so presented your argument as to give that impression that you are/were looking for meanings of words.

That is a classic example of the thalamic (emotional) response I have been talking about all along.

Like I said Skan, many of your own responses here on the BB are heated, a little more subdued than others but nonetheless "thalamic" (emotional).

We are all cut from the same cloth.

I hope your sense of humor is as good your splendid wit and wordscraftsmanship.

HankD