Word Rape example essay topic
461 words
1. Frege's solution consists of five parts. First, the principle of extensional ity states that the meaning of an expression is the thing it refers to. Second, the principle of compositionality states that the meaning of an expression is completely determined by the meaning of the parts and the way those parts are ordered. For example, a sentence with ABC is different than sentence CAB because even though the contents are the same, the order is different. Third, both can not be true. Reference doesn't require same parts and order. Fourth, accepts compositionality because you can not disregard parts and order (or the semantics of sentences), which leads to the meaning of a symbol to not be the object denoted. Last, where meaning of the sentence is derived comes from what the semantics expresses. He calls this sense. 2.? 3. Meinong would say that in the sentence "the rape of nanking didn't really happen" the possibility of rape didn't really happen because in the historical context it didn't.
That is the validity of the statement is true because you can't rape a city, therefore, the rape didn't happen. Ryle would say "the rape of Nanking didn't really happen" is a systematically misleading expression. Upon philosophical analysis, attributing the word rape is to associate human association (ex. the humiliation and tram a of forced sex) and apply such associations to a city that was invaded. While such actions as rape and assault might have occurred, the city of Nanking itself is not a person and therefore cannot be associated with rape. 4.? Searle demonstrates that words are part of the experience.
When he notes the points of the base and apex of an imaginary triangle and shifts the base and apex he uses language to do the shifting. That is, language makes a word an object and the function of the system which the word is used in, i.e. language, brings to bare the representation of words as reality or the base and apex as in the case of the triangle that Searle points out. 5. It fails because it doesn't account for possible by the speaker who could have an ulterior move for conveying his point.
He calls it the "sneaky objection". You can intend to have someone believe something without having that someone know you are trying to get them to believe it. His solution is to revise his theory to say two things. First, the speaker intended some specific meaning to an audience to reduce a belief.
The speaker then wants the audience to recognize the intention to justify their believing the intention.
