1

It is often said that "meaning is context".

This is a hollow definition because the context has its own meaning, which is its wider context, and so on until all contexts have been exhausted. It is the same recursive issue as the dictionary problem, where every word is defined in terms of other words and there is no a priori vocabulary which a dictionary can call on. The whole game depends on a level of existing knowledge obtained by the reader from elsewhere. Similarly, there is no a priori context to give meaning to anything which can provide further context; the thinker must already have a baseline of knowledge.

What approaches to meaning have philosophers taken to get round this problem?

Guy Inchbald
  • 2,532
  • 3
  • 15
  • Who says "meaning **is** context" ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 06 '20 at 13:42
  • The meaning of an expression may be [different in different situations]( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/#CharContContCirc): "These “situations” are typically called *contexts of utterance*, or just contexts, and expressions whose reference depends on the context are called *indexicals* or context-dependent expressions." – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 06 '20 at 13:45
  • This sounds like a garbled version of [Frege's context principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle):"*never... ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only in the context of a proposition*". As you can see from the context, it was not meant as a definition. And Frege's answer to what the meaning of a proposition is was this: its truth conditions, circumstances that make it true. – Conifold Nov 07 '20 at 06:13
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA You ask, "Who says meaning is context?" I cannot recall now, but it was a standard topic when I was a philosophy undergrad back in the 1970s. Nowadays it seems to be more of an umbrella term for "context-related", "context-dependent", "context-whatever". Part of my motivation for asking is to gain insights into how and why such varied qualifications came about. – Guy Inchbald Nov 07 '20 at 10:39
  • The issue seems related to the question of the " hermeneutic circle". https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/#HermCirc – Floridus Floridi Nov 07 '20 at 11:01
  • also : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIEzc__BBxs – Floridus Floridi Nov 07 '20 at 11:02
  • In an axiomatic theory, some words are not explicitly defined; they are given meaning by their use in the basic context which is provided by the axioms themselves. For example, the word " set" in set theory. – Floridus Floridi Nov 07 '20 at 11:04
  • 1
    @FloridusFloridi Axiomatic forms are pure logical structures. The primitives have to be imbued with meaning from elsewhere - from the context in which the axioms are being applied. Axiomatic geometry is the apocryphal example (attributed to Hilbert), where "points, lines and planes" might equally refer to tables, chairs and beer mugs. – Guy Inchbald Nov 07 '20 at 11:11
  • Yes, this is what I meant. I wanted to say that, to some extent, the context defined by the axioms was a basic one. – Floridus Floridi Nov 07 '20 at 11:29
  • Just discussed similar question 'Where do meanings of concepts come from?' My answer is here https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/77261/where-do-meanings-of-concepts-come-from/77284#77284 – CriglCragl Nov 07 '20 at 18:49

0 Answers0