[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[MarshaV]

Greetings David,

>Marsha Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:00, you wrote:
>
>Okay David, I'm willing to try for some seriousness, but I will need your
>help.  I know very little of Hobbes and cannot see the relevance.  It is my
>understanding that Hobbes is a materialist.  I have found and lightly read
>the following article:
>
>http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/figlit.html
>
>The first curiosity is that there is still controversy as to what this
>17th-century philosopher meant.  Second I have no idea what of his
>definition of meaning interests you or where you are expecting it to lead.
>
>Personally, at the moment I am very comfortable with the idea that there is
>no thing-in-itself.  And I can agree with the interpretation of Hobbes that
>states 'names are names of mental images.'
>
>I will leave it to you to give this loose collection of ideas a direction.



>At 09:09 PM 2/26/2009, David wrote:
>
>Marsha, your link provided some serious philosophizing on Hobbes' theory of
>meaning. I had something simpler in mind: from Leviathan, "The original of
>the all is that which we call SENSE, for there is no conception in a man's
>mind which has not at first, totally or by parts, been begotten upon the
>organs of sense. The rest are derived from that original."
>
>Where am I going with this?
>
>It seems to me that a fundamental tenant of the MoQ is that preverbal
>experience is DQ derived from Quality and it cannot be defined. Call me
>simple but I believe that Pirsig's experience is somewhat like Hobbes's,
>Hume's, Locke's and Kant's experiences. As I've been saying over (and over)
>the past few weeks and as the hot stove example proves, we feel things
>before we verbalize them. Everyone feels things before they verbalize them.
>I see no reason to believe that Pirsig and Whitehead are pointing to
>anything different than Hobbes et al. They are all pointing to the feelings
>that come before words, feelings that are the meaning of words.
>
>Words cannot make sense without the feelings they refer to. Meaning is the
>effect of feelings on our bodies. You understand the word "apple" by the
>recollection of its sight in your eyes and taste in your mouth. There is no
>other way to understand the word. It cannot gain meaning from definitions
>unless those definitions effect you with feelings. Red, round fruit is an
>"apple" but only because you can re-see and re-taste apple from that
>definition.
>
>Feelings like DQ and words are linked by meaning.

Philosophizing indeed, and with such a distinguished list as Hobbes, 
Hume, Locke and Kant.  It's hard to believe there would be exact 
agreement between these philosophers, especially in regards to a word 
like 'feeling' with its many definitions and multiple layers of 
connotation.  Maybe you can offer some quotes as evidence to 
establish their agreement of usage and definition.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?   Words, including 'feeling' 
and excluding poetry, are secondhand and not the experience.  Science 
offers only generalized analogy and says very little about direct 
experience.  In my experience: not this, not that.  'Feeling' like 
all sq is sometimes conventionally useful and has a beauty of its own.


Marsha




.
_____________

Science does not know its debt to imagination.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.