Steven True said:
john_alexander said:
In the same vein; the idea of 'inherent meaning'.
Meaning is not a thing, it is an event. There is no such thing as inherent meaning, merely ideas being interpreted individually into individualist meanings.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this. If this was true then how can any two people, or a society for that matter, agree on the meaning of anything and communicate?
In two ways; first, by being convinced meaning can be inherent (it's the way the human brain works; it tricks itself into believing meaning is inherent in order to facilitate communication). Second, by accepting interpreted meanings on a large scale; symbolism, for example. A Crucifix doesn't actually mean anything (for example, to myself, it's just a cross with a figure on it), but widespread acceptance of the idea of the crucifixion of Christ and the ideas it is said to represent builds an interpretation that is very different between myself and a devout Christian. Or a Buddhist.
A further example, using the Crucifix, is this; imagine someone from, say, a secluded village. Think stereotypical jungle tribe; no technology, little-to-no communication with the outside world. They look at a Crucifix and see nothing of any importance; it has no meaning beyond an unfortunate guy stuck to two intersecting pieces of wood. And it only has that meaning because, more than likely, these imaginary tribespeople have witnessed death, and so filter this unknown man's being stuck to wood in that pose through their experiences.
To go back to the original question of 'how can any two people, or a society for that matter, agree on the meaning of anything and communicate?': because they have to. Their (our) brains deceives them (us) because they have to in order to survive. Strength is in numbers, and numbers can only be formed by communication. So the brain tricks itself, creating formal agreements between brains that are mistaken for absolute meanings.
This is not to say that everyone is wrong, which is the usual path people take down this philosophy; if there is no inherent meaning, there is no truth. This, I believe, is a mistake. If there is no meaning, there is nothing but truth. The problem is not that everyone is wrong, but that everyone is right (to certain extents; this is a gross oversimplification of the idea).
EDIT: Also, people rarely, if ever, completely agree, even when faced with exactly the same evidence. People might share interpretations on one thing, and hold completely exclusive and contradictory interpretations on another. How can this be? If meaning were inherent, all people would absorb the same ideas and concepts in exactly the same manner. Another example; the movie Irreversible (a VERY disturbing movie; you have been warned) contains an uninterrupted nine-minute rape scene (Hey! I warned you!). To me, this scene is disgusting, brutal, disturbing, and yet oddly fascinating; that human beings can do this to each other frightens me to no end. My eyes were glued to the screen for the whole nine minutes. To a rape victim, this would not in any way be fascinating (well, maybe; I can't generalize about something I don't know. All I know is my friends reaction), it would be an abomination, something that should never, ever absolutely EVER be shown on film.
Different meanings drawn from exactly the same situation, idea and concept.