|
Notes on 2.1 and 2.2 Emotive meaning and
cognitive meaning In
the literary (English class) sense, the “connotation” of a word means the
conventional associations that come with the word. Often these associations have an emotional
tone. Some words have positive
connotation: “fresh”, “new”, “natural”, “friend”, etc. Think how often you hear words like that in
advertising, and in product names and descriptions. Some words have negative connotations also. People
often use words with positive or negative connotation in order to to express or evoke emotion. Expressing or evoking emotion is not a bad
thing in itself, but emotions can take over — Hurley says they have a
“steamroller effect” — and interfere with people’s reason and judgment. In logic, we try to analyze reasoning, to
determine which arguments are objectively better. So when we hear an arguer using
emotionally-loaded language, we should be careful not to get sucked into the
emotions. This can be hard, especially
if we have our own strong views on the topic being discussed. Our brains are already grooved to hop on
board the emotion train. Linguists
and philosophers of language do NOT use the word “connotation” in the literary
sense. (We will see what philosophers
and linguists mean by “connotation” shortly.) To express the concept of
connotation in the literary sense, philosophers and linguists use the
expression “emotive meaning”. Governments
and advertisers tend to use emotive language and images in very subtle ways. We
should be on the lookout for propaganda and slanting. Think of the term “harvest” used in
connection with hunting; or the recent “surge” in In
the literary sense, the “denotation” of a word means the exact meaning of a
word without the attached feelings or associations. People use words denotatively when they want
to convey information, rather than evoke or express emotion. Linguists
and philosophers of language do not use the word “denotation” in the literary
sense. To express the concept of
denotation in the literary sense, philosophers and linguists use the expression
“cognitive meaning”. The order of discussion in
these notes I
think it is easier to understand the rest of section 2.1 if we first learn the
terminology of section 2.2. So I’m going
to now proceed to section 2.2 and return to 2.1 in a bit. Section 2.2 Notes Hurley
defines “term” as “a word or group
of words that can serve as the subject of a statement”. The subject of a statement is always a noun or
noun phrase. So you can think of terms as nouns or noun phrases. Mathematically speaking, nouns and noun
phrases designate classes, or sets. For
example, the noun “dog” designates any one of a class of things we call dogs.
So for philosophers, terms are words
or phrases that designate classes. There
are three kinds of terms:
In
the usage of philosophers and linguists, the denotation of a term is the class of things in the world to which
the term correctly applies. For example, the denotation of the term “book” is
all the books. Philosophical synonyms for “denotation” are “extensional
meaning”, “reference” and “extension”.
Note this sense of “denotation” is not the literary sense. The
denotation (extension) of the general term “square” is all squares. The denotation (extension) of the term
“inventor” is the class consisting of Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel
F. B. Morse, the Wright brothers, etc. “A
set of terms is in the order of increasing
extension when each term in the series (except the first) denotes a class
having more members than the class denoted by the term preceding it.” For example, the following set of terms is in
the order of increasing extension: tiger, feline, mammal, animal. In
the usage of philosophers and linguists, the connotation of a term is the list of membership conditions for the
denotation. It is the properties or
characteristics or attributes that a thing must have in order to be a member of
the denotation, i.e., it is a list of necessary conditions. Philosophical
synonyms for “connotation” are “intentional meaning”, “sense”, “intension”, and “real definition”. Note
this sense of “connotation” is NOT the literary sense. The
connotation (intension) of “square” is the attributes “rectangular” and “equilateral”. The connotation (intension) of the term
“inventor” includes attributes such as “clever”, “intuitive”, “creative”, “imaginative”,
etc. “A
set of terms is in the order of increasing
intension when each term in the series (except the first) connotes more
attributes than the term preceding it.”
When a term connotes more attributes, more membership conditions must be
met, so the term is more specific and less general. The following set of terms is in the order of
increasing intension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger. Now
I’ll go back to Section 2.1. Value claims People
often use arguments to establish value claims. Value claims are not merely
expressive, or “matters of opinion”, or “subjective”. Value claims convey (or are intended to
convey) cognitive meaning. Value
claims require argument (evidence or support). People
usually think of value claims as ethical or moral claims, but value claims also
include aesthetic and political claims: e.g., claims about which movie is
better, which team is better, which form of government is better, which laws
are better, which public enterprises are better, which wars or taxes are better,
etc. – everyday arguments people have all the time. If
you think (as many students do) that value claims are merely subjective and
matters of opinion, you may be surprised to learn that philosophers often think
value claims are objective matters of fact.
For example, the claim “You should eat vegetables” is a value
claim. But it is not merely a matter of
opinion, or “subjective”. As a matter of
fact, it is true (to the best of our knowledge at this point) if you want to optimize your
health. But people do want that. The claim “Steve Young plays football better
than Hillary Clinton” is a value claim.
But it is not merely a matter of opinion. It is true if we agree what it means to be a good football player. But people do agree on that. Value
claims involve very interesting and important philosophical issues, discussed
in the notes “Thinking Critically About the
Subjective-Objective Distinction”. When
people argue for value claims, they often get emotional, and tend to overuse
emotive terminology and/or images, so their arguments are often
problematic. Value arguments require
especially careful analysis. It IS
possible to have reasoned debate about value claims, but we need to untangle
and separate the cognitive and emotive meanings. Closed concepts The
distinction between open and closed concepts is usually discussed at length in
Introduction to Philosophy courses. It
is not in your logic book, but I think it helps to understand much of the
material of Chapters 2 and 3. A closed concept is one for which it is
possible to precisely specify the membership conditions for getting into the class
of things denoted by a term (the denotation). (Another more technical way to say this is that
a concept is closed if it is possible to precisely specify its connotation,
in the linguistics/philosophy sense.)
For example, the concept “square” (in the geometric sense) is closed.
The set of squares has two membership conditions: being equilateral and being
rectangular. For something to be in the denotation of “square,” it must satisfy
both conditions; in other words, it must be both equilateral and rectangular.
Each condition is necessary and together the conditions are sufficient to make
something a member of the denotation of “square.” Few
concepts are closed. Open concepts (more or less
vague) Most
concepts are open (i.e., more or less vague).
This is not a big deal. Open concepts still define classes; it’s just that the
borders of these classes are fuzzier and, for some very important concepts
(like “person”) these borders are liable to change as we continue to reason and solve new
problems. Examples of open concepts: beard, rich, disabled, obscene, unselfish,
healthy, sexual harassment, date rape, person, etc. With
open concepts, we don’t define by listing membership conditions. Rather, we recognize members of the class by
their resemblance to paradigms of
the concept, but it is often difficult to specify the connotation precisely. Example: “person” The
old paradigm of a person was a white straight man of property. A conceptual paradigm shift occurred and now women, children, and former slaves
count as paradigms of persons.
Undoubtedly there will be more changes. Example:
“disabled person” We
know the paradigms of disabled persons (people like Stephen Hawking and
Christopher Reeve), and we judge whether or not another individual should be
called “disabled” on the basis of the resemblance between this person and the
paradigms. (I.e., we argue by analogy.) When
we say that the concept “disabled person” is open, we mean simply that it is hard to decide in some cases whether
that concept should be applied to an individual person. We do NOT mean to say
that the concept is useless. Just because it’s hard to say in some cases
doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as a disabled person! Arguing that way would
be committing the continuum fallacy (see separate notes). Most of
the interesting social, legal, and philosophical debates concern are open concepts, and require argument by analogy to decide
borderline cases: “person,” “good,” “religion,” “rich,” “sexual harassment,”
“obscenity,” “minority,” “educated”, etc. Such argument is important because it
matters what we as a community decide to call things: social realities exist, in fact, only because we decide they
do. Social realities include money,
marriage, weeds, national parks, citizenship, etc.
Ambiguity A
term is ambiguous if it has multiple denotations. For example, the term “bank” is ambiguous
because it correctly denotes at least two completely different classes of
things: (1) the class of financial institutions; and (2) the class of slopes
immediately bordering streams of water.
The term “light” is ambiguous because it correctly denotes at least
three different classes: (1) the class of things that are not heavy; (2) the
class of things that are not dark; and (3) the class of things that are low in
calories. Ambiguous
terms sometimes cause problems with understanding a person’s meaning, but often
we can determine from context which meaning a speaker has in mind. For example, if a person says he is going to
put his money in a bank, we are unlikely to be confused. On the other hand, if we work in a bar where
the options include light (as opposed to dark) beer, as well as light (as
opposed to regular-calorie) beer, we might have to ask the customer for
clarification of his “light beer” order. Verbal disputes and factual
disputes Sometimes
people do not agree about what actually is the case. For example, many people believe
(incorrectly) that In
philosophy and law and academia and politics, verbal disputes are common. A verbal dispute arises because a term
is vague or ambiguous. Philosophically
interesting verbal disputes arise when we don’t know what to call something, or
how to classify something. I.e., interesting
verbal disputes arise when we are dealing with open concepts, i.e., where a term is vague, i.e., term’s denotation
has fuzzy borders and we need to figure out where to draw a line. When
doing the homework for Section 2.2, Group III, it is sufficient to distinguish
whether the dispute is verbal or factual.
You do not need to determine if verbal disputes are the result of
vagueness or ambiguity, since that is often not obvious. Sandy's X10 Host Home Page | Sandy's Google Sites Home Page Questions or comments? sandy_lafave@yahoo.com |