Philosophy of language – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy of language is the reasoned inquiry into the nature, origins, and usage of language. As a topic, the philosophy of language for analytic philosophers is concerned with four central problems: the nature ofmeaninglanguage use, language cognition, and the relationship between language and reality. For continental philosophers, however, the philosophy of language tends to be dealt with, not as a separate topic, but as a part of logic. (See the section “Language and continental philosophy” below.)

First, philosophers of language inquire into the nature of meaning, and seek to explain what it means to “mean” something. Topics in that vein include the nature of synonymy, the origins of meaning itself, and how any meaning can ever really be known. Another project under this heading of special interest to analytic philosophers of language is the investigation into the manner in which sentences are composed into a meaningful whole out of the meaning of its parts.

Second, they would like to understand what speakers and listeners do with language in communication, and how it is used socially. Specific interests may include the topics of language learning, language creation, and speech acts.

Third, they would like to know how language relates to the minds of both the speaker and the interpreter. Of specific interest is the grounds for successful translation of words into other words.

Finally, they investigate how language and meaning relate to truth and the world. Philosophers tend to be less concerned with which sentences areactually true, and more with what kinds of meanings can be true or false. A truth-oriented philosopher of language might wonder whether or not a meaningless sentence can be true or false, or whether or not sentences can express propositions about things that do not exist, rather than the way sentences are used.

Philosophy of language – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ludwig Wittgenstein – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world, and believed that by providing an account of the logic underlying this relationship he had solved all philosophical problems. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the conclusions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is constituted by the function they perform within any given language-game.
Ludwig Wittgenstein – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

Dianetics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dianetics is a set of pseudoscientific ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body that was invented by L. Ron Hubbard and is practiced by followers of Scientology. Hubbard coined Dianetics from the Greek stems dia, meaning through, and nous, meaning mind.

 

Dianetics explores the existence of a mind with three parts: the conscious “analytical mind,” the subconscious “reactive mind“, and the somatic mind.[1] The goal of Dianetics is to remove the “reactive mind”, which Scientologists believe prevents people from becoming more ethical, more aware, happier and saner. The Dianetics procedure to achieve this is called “auditing”.[2] Auditing is a process whereby a series of questions are asked by the Scientology auditor, in an attempt to rid the auditee of the painful experiences of the past which scientologists believe to be the cause of the “reactive mind”.

Dianetics grew out of Hubbard’s personal experiences and experiments and has been described as a mix of “Western technology and Oriental philosophy”.[3] Hubbard stated that Dianetics “forms a bridge between” cybernetics and General Semantics, a set of ideas about education originated by Alfred Korzybski that was receiving much attention in the science fiction world in the 1940s

Dianetics – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Euphemism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A euphemism is a generally harmless word, name, or phrase that substitutes an offensive or suggestive one.[1] Some euphemisms intend to amuse, while others intend to give positive appearances to negative events or even mislead entirely. Euphemisms also often take the place of profanity. The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism.

via Euphemism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Dysphemism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dysphemism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In languagedysphemism,a malphemism,b and cacophemismc refer to the usage of an intentionally harsh (rather than polite) word or expression; roughly the opposite of euphemism.[1]

Referring to the paper version of an online magazine as the “dead tree edition” or conventional postal mailas “snail-mail” are examples of dysphemisms.

Intertextuality – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intertextuality is the shaping of texts’ meanings by other texts. It can include an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another.

The term “intertextuality” has, itself, been borrowed and transformed many times since it was coined bypoststructuralist Julia Kristeva in 1966. 

Kristeva’s coinage of “intertextuality” represents an attempt to synthesize Ferdinand de Saussure’s semiotics—his study of how signs derive their meaning within the structure of a text—with Bakhtin’s dialogism—his examination of the multiple meanings, or “heteroglossia”, in each text (especially novels) and in each word.[2] 

For Kristeva,[3] “the notion of intertextuality replaces the notion of intersubjectivity” when we realize that meaning is not transferred directly from writer to reader but instead is mediated through, or filtered by, “codes” imparted to the writer and reader by other texts.

For example, when we readJames Joyce’s Ulysses we decode it as a modernist literary experiment, or as a response to the epic tradition, or as part of some other conversation, or as part of all of these conversations at once. This intertextual view of literature, as shown by Roland Barthes, supports the concept that the meaning of a text does not reside in the text, but is produced by the reader in relation not only to the text in question, but also the complex network of texts invoked in the reading process.

via Intertextuality – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Writing contracts is like programming | Never Use This Font

Writing contracts feels a little bit like programming.

Writing contracts feels a little bit like programming.

There is an expected syntax and structure, there are certain key words that have special meaning (i.e. functions, keywords), and removing certain clauses make the entire contract invalid (i.e. runtime error). However, contracts are executed over a much longer timeline.

via Writing contracts is like programming | Never Use This Font.