WORDS AND CONCEPTS

WHAT IS A WORD?

- Simplest unit of communication

- Philosophers believe that words are arbitrary and artificial
- No necessary connection between words we use and things they represent/describe
- ARTIFICIAL SIGNS constructed ARBITRARILY in ordinary language / with painstaking care to refer to new
phenomenon
o ARTIFICIAL because they can be INVENTED
o SIGNS because they represent something other than themselves
- MATERIAL SIGNS because they can be heard, seen spoken, written
- Can be used as signs of things, operation, thinking, feeling, concepts, or even other words

- Things could have had different names at the time when they had no name
- Names are established by linguistic convention
- Cannot be easily changed
- Would require another linguistic convention to change name
- More difficult than naming unnamed object

CONCEPT

- Not same as a word (though words can be used as a SIGN OF A CONCEPT)

- Made up of ideas ; words are made up of letters
- Ability to form concepts is a natural part of being human
o Human knowledge and life will be impossible

HOW ARE CONCEPTS FORMED?

- All things that exist in the world are PARTICULARS (John Locke)
o Compare to individual bits of sand
o Can you give a name to every bit of sand? Hell nah
- GENERAL TERMS were invented because it’s impossible for all particulars to have proper names
o Process known as ABSTRACTION
- GENERAL IDEA is formed when we notice a characteristic/s common to a group of particulars

TERMS

- Word/s used to express a CONCEPT

- Verbal means of expressing what we know through concepts
- Made up of letters unlike concepts which are abstract
- SIMPLE TERMS are made of single words
o Dog, cat, bird
- COMPLEX TERMS are made up of several words
o The present king of France, the author of Waverly

*Words and concepts have NO TRUTH VALUE

 - Concepts can be precise/vague, sufficient/insufficient, but NOT TRUE OR FALSE
- Concepts are building blocks of knowledge but can hardly be imagined to exist (SUBSIST is a better term)
except in our minds
- w/o ability to form concepts, human knowledge will not be possible

THE PROBLEM OF MEANING

REFERENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING

- PLATO believed that linguistic expressions function like proper names

o Equated meaning w/ referent of name
o Ex: meaning of Dido is the referent of the Carthaginian queen
o In turn, meaning of queen is identified w/ the referent which it allegedly names
- ARISTOTLE similarly believed that the meaning of the word is found in what the word refers to
o Ex: chair refers to all chairs in the world
o Seems natural to identify the word w/ all chairs
o If we know what referent of chair, we know what the word means
o Anyone who can’t understand can be taught by pointing to the referent (the chair itself)
o This pointing gesture became known as OSTENSIVE DEFINITION
- Theory of meaning became known as the REFERENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING

Ex:

1. The morning star is the same as (or identical to) the evening star.
2. The morning star is the same as (or identical to) the morning star.

- Evening/morning star is Venus

- If we accept that the meaning of a word is to be identified with the reference (above statement), then
both statements are identical in all aspects.
- NO PERCEIVABLE DIFFERENCE between the two statements

GOTTLOB FREGE’S THEORY OF MEANING

- Gottlob Frege suggested that there should be something more in our analysis besides the referent
because even if you DO NOT KNOW the referent, the two complex terms are meaningful
o Both expressions (evening and morning star) have different SENSES OR MEANING
o In 1st sentence, only identity in referent but not in meaning
o In 2nd sentence, identity in referent and meaning
o Both complex terms are PROPER NAMES
o Proper names may be single or complex terms
 Every proper name expresses its sense (meaning) and designates its REFERENT
 We let a sign express its sense and designate it nominatum

J.S. MILL
 - Made a distinction between proper names like Zeus and Plato (which he called SINGULAR NAMES) and
GENERAL NAMES like man, animal, plant
- Proper names denote referent but do not connote any attribute belonging to object
- General names denote referent and connotes attributes of object
- Only general names will be meaningful because singular names only denote referents
- Meaning resides in the connotation, not denotation

BERTRAND RUSSELL

- Meaning resides in denotation, not connotation

- Meaning of singular name becomes object denoted by the name
- Due to his influence, Plato and Aristotle’s theory of meaning survived in 20 th cent. Empiricism

*Referential theory of meaning stipulates that meaning of a word is the object denoted by it

- Best way of teaching the meaning of a word is to point to the referent

o Can be taught through ostensive definition (check earlier statements)
o A word without a referent is meaningless
- Objectionable concepts in Theology
o Being, God, mind, the absolute
- Objectionable concepts in Psychology
o Ego, spirit, soul, intention, volition
- ^ no actual referents

WITTGENSTEIN’S THEORY OF MEANING

Based on referential theory of meaning, if the subject of a sentence has no referent, then subject is meaningless,
making whole sentence meaningless

WITTGENSTEIN demolished the theory

Ex. 1

- Excalibur
- Based on referential theory, meaning will be actual sword Excalibur
- If the sword is broken into pieces, is the meaning of Excalibur going to become broken into pieces too?

Ex.2

- Mr. N.
- Based on referential theory, meaning will be the person Mr. N.
- If Mr N. dies, would Mr. N’s meaning become dead?
- Is the sentence Mr. N. is dead meaningless, considering that a name without meaning is usead?

Wittgenstein stated that the meaning of a word is its use in the language

- The meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer

- You can use a name to denote a bearer but the meaning should not be confused with its bearer but only
with the USE
 - By USE, he meant actual uses of words by people in actual linguistic contexts
- Terms like substance and ideas are examples of language games by philosophers but have NO FORM OF
LIFE
- If a language game is unplayable by real people in real situations, it has no form of life

To determine the meaning of a word, one must identify how the word is used in a particular language game (words
with multiple meanings)

- When words are used for a particular purpose, a language game is played
- There are many language games in a natural language
- LANGUAGE GAME is meant to bring into prominence the fact that speaking of language is a part of an
activity or a form of life
- If you have an activity that cannot be done without language, then you have a GENUINE language game
- If a language game is only playable by one person, then it is NOT GENUINE
o Wittgenstein called these PRIVATE LANGUAGE
- If another person can play your language game, then it has a form of life
- A bogus language game does not have a form of life
o For it to have a form of life, anyone who wants to play should be able to do so
o Rules out fortune telling and faith healing

USING THE SAME LANGUAGE

USES OF WORDS

1. Informative
2. Evaluative – evaluate/estimate worth/value of object
a. Moral
b. Logical
c. Aesthetic
d. Economic
e. Religious
3. Evocative – express feelings and emotions
a. I love you
b. I have a headache
4. Imperative - commands
5. Interrogative – questions
6. Directive – give you directions on how to take course of action
7. Persuasive – to persuade
8. Recreational – for amusement
9. Performative – promises

To speak or write the same words does not guarantee that we are using it in the same way

To say that two persons speak the same language is to say that they are using the same word in more or less the
same way in numerous language game
Words, according to LEXICOGRAPHERS, have a history

- The SAME US OF THE WORD becomes integrated in numerouse language games when it gains currency
- Conventional use
o Father, mother, brother, family, marriage, etc.
o Used in more or less the same way
o It may happen that a word w/ conventional used be modified and used UNIQUELY in a language
game
o AMBIGUOUS if it has too many meanings in different language games
o VAGUE if it is used too loosely
- Many controversies are pointless because people often utter the same word but use it in different ways
o Important when the word is used uniquely by both parties
o Uttering the same word can lead to a PURELY VERBAL AGREEMENT
o Ex: God (used differently by different practitioners but they do not recognize this)

Never take part in a discussion unless you are playing the same language game to avoid useless controversy

EXTENSION AND INTENSION OF CONCEPTS

EXTENSION (DENOTATION)

- Members of the domain of the concept

- Range of application of concept
- Ex: mammals

INTENSION (CONNOTATION)

- Traits or characteristics of members (sometimes essential property that is precise and clearly defined)
- Necessary condition for one to qualify to be a member of extension
- Ex: mammary gland

The ESSENTIALIST in the philosophy of language believes that for a term to be meaningful, the intension of the
concept should be limited to an essential property only

- ESSENTIALISM states that if no essential property in common w/ all members, the term cannot be
meaningful
- Hardly questioned until Wittgenstein came

TYPES OF CONCEPTS
EMPIRICAL
 - Intensions (traits) are observable (exist in space and time)
- Tangible and visible traits observable through unaided senses (naked senses, no help from tech)
- Only empirical if it passes the test of INTRA (I can identify and reidentify) AND INTER-SUBJECTIVITY (others
can sense it)

ABSTRACT

- Some are abstract like logic and numbers in math

- Because they don’t exist in space and time
- Considered to be CONCEPTUAL ENTITIES
- Don’t exist, but SUBSIST in the mind
- Sometimes called MENTAL ENTITIES
- Extension cannot be found in the world

EVALUATIVE

- Concept of good/bad, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, moral/immoral, etc

- Used to express APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
- Used when we judge value/worth of an act, object, or behavior

FICTITIOUS

- We know there are no members in extension of the concept

- Humpty Dumpty, unicorns, mermaids
- Fairy tales and cartoon shows
- Purely imaginary

DISPOSITIONAL

- Elastic, magnetic, temperature

- Do not designate directly observable trait
- Can exhibit certain observable trait if certain OPERATIONS are performed

THEORETICAL

- Border on twilight zone of OBSERVABLE AND UNOBSERVABLE

- Atom, microorganisms
- Only observable through human intervention like using tech (microscopes and stuff)
- Cannot be readily classified as empirical (naked senses only)
- Spirits, ghosts

METAPHYSICAL
 - Have problematic statuses in philo
- Mind, matter, God
- The absolute, monads, being
-

AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE TERMS

Ambiguous term: good

- HEDONIST uses term to refer to bodily pleasure

- HUMANIST refers to development of all your human potentials
- UTILITARIAN, any action that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number is good
- LOGICAL POSITIVIST uses term to express approval of act
- KANTIAN, good if done in accordance w/ your duty

When a term is vague, something went wrong w/ the intension of the concept

- Set of traits that members must have to be included in extension is not sufficient to determine what to
include and exclude
- Ex: some – How many is some? Bruh
- One must CLARIFY the intension of the concept to make it usable for including and exluding members
- Ex: art and porn – what is the line between these two?

Never take part in any verbal dispute unless you are playing the same language game

- DEFINE YOUR TERMS

FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

- You may use a term in one way and use it again later in the same line of reasoning
- Paulit ulit

ON DEFINITIONS
DEFINITION BY SYNONYM

- Defining an unfamiliar term by using a familiar term

- Looking for a synonym is preparation for a GOOD DEFINITION
- Error in definition called CIRCULAR DEFINITION (defining a term w/ basically the same term)

OSTENSIVE DEFINITION

- Pointing gesture
- Giving examples
- Ex: what are amphibians? Frogs and turtles.
- Incomplete because amphibian will be narrowly limited to frogs and turtles
- You can DISCRIMINATE individuals from the rest
- But cannot GENERALIZE use of term amphibian
INTENSION AND EXTENSION

- To have complete understanding, state the concept’s INTENSION without vagueness and give some
typical examples of the members of the EXTENSION
- State in simple, clear, and precise language to avoid vagueness

KINDS OF DEFINITION

1. Reportive/Lexical – provides info about how term is being used in the same way of numerouse language
games (established definition)
2. Stipulative – uses term in a very unique way in a language game (no truth value and suggests a meaning)
a. Main technique for introducing TECHNICAL TERMS
3. Operational – defines concept w operation to be performed
a. Instrumental operations performed by various devices for observation
b. Paper and pencil operations, verbal operations, and thought experiments
c. The operation needed to perform is the INTENSION

ANALYTIC DEFINITION
Analytic definition is focused on the statement of the intension w/o vagueness and the offering of typical examples
of the extension (adds example to definition)

Definiendum – term to be defined

Definiens – intension / defining property of definiendum

- Has genus (wider concept of which definiendum is a member) and differentia (distinguishes definiendum
from other species)

Denotata – example of the members of the extension (most neglected aspect)