it's the ole' problem with theory vs. practice. when you think that words (or ideas, conceptual frames, books, etc) mean something but you do entirely different things with them, then what's the point of attributing that first meaning to them? it's not that they don't have a meaning - not even that they don't have a completely stable meaning. you just aren't being upfront about what that meaning is. that's why the phrase "the language game" is perfect . . . it's just playing around.
I guess I am questioning whether or not words have a completely stable meaning. When the practice is different from the theory every time- then how stable is the theory? But then, it takes someone to come in the picture and blow you out with how wonderful the stable meaning can be- some people can make it so just with their voice and sincerity.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment