honestrosewater said:So I'm really trying to make sense of what you're saying, and if you can explain it, please do.
I appreciate your efforts but I think I'd be wasting your time if I proceeded with this discussion. I'll keep reading your posts and make comments on this topic when I sense I can make a meaningful contribution.
What do you think of the idea that to know what a statement means is to know the conditions under which it is true under a given interpretation? If someone said Bob's shirt is wet when Bob's shirt wasn't wet, wouldn't you think that they don't know what Bob's shirt is wet means?
They could be lying. And this goes straight to my point: ultimately, there's no way to establish if Bob's shirt is wet on a purely linguistic basis. I can't write a computer program to evaluate the truth of the statement "Bob's shirt is wet" by simply evaluating the meaning of each term in the sentence. There is more to language than what you can express with language itself, but of course when I make a statement like that using language, it sounds ridiculous - because it's true!