Based linguist?

[Anonymous No.18488469]

My intuitive position on linguistics is that words hold no inherent meaning and are only used to convey and express emotional states or pragmatic intent.

The word "Bigot" (which has been on my mind lately) means nothing and has no set definition to it. It's only a substitute for the word "Bad" and the word "Bad" is an ultimately an expression of your negative emotional state against someone or something. Almost all language can then be boiled down to "I like" or "I don't like". I can use the word "Good" to mean "Bad" and it would be just as valid but the only reason I don't is out of pragmatic reasoning.

Because of this I am vehemently against the authority of dictionaries as a final say in establishing the "meaning" behind a word. Dictionaries are tyrannical. There is no inherent meaning behind any word. Meaning change all the time, our values reflect the meaning we put behind words.

Which linguist or philosopher should I read who holds a smilier view on linguistics?

[Anonymous No.18488503]

Please don't be a retard and actually read a book on linguistic fundamentals -- 'words hold no inherent meaning' is a basic fact of all languages. You're coming off as an edgy zoomer (Nietzsche with a gun does not help your case) when all you need to do is read a book.

Try pic related, retard.

[Anonymous No.18488586]

>>18488503
>Try pic related, retard.
I'm not until you understand what my intent is.

Let me make myself clear: My interest in linguistics only came about as a result of observing how the Left uses and utilities it in the fight against their political enemies.

The word "Racist" is a case study: There's this idea that certain people are "racist" against other people. And then comes the idea that certain people cannot be "racist" against a certain other people. In my mind "Racism" just means you dislike certain people, but the Left has manipulated the use of this word to mean that only a certain people can hold ill thoughts against other people and if this other people think badly of another people it's cannot be "Racism" (e.g it's not bad) because the "definition" of "racism" means such and such.

Language and words hold real power over peoples minds. Whoever gets to define and make up words literally holds the power. I think Nietzsche knew the exact meaning of this in the case of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18488622]

>>18488469
>>18488586
This isn’t linguistics, this is apparent to anyone who’s ever used any system of communication. Fucks sake anon get it together.
Maybe Roland Barthes’ Mythologies? Should be easy enough for you to understand

[Anonymous No.18488642]

>>18488469
Beginning a post, or any sort of writing, with 'my' is a crime, heightened only by the use of intuitive or position, as if anything is more than mere opinion.

>inb4 oBjeCtivIty DoEsn'T EXisT

It does. You're a midwit if you can't understand how it comes to be and why, and what objectivity is; in turn, what subjectivity, far important actually, then is; how objectivity and subjectivity relate.

[Anonymous No.18488687]

>>18488622
>This isn’t linguistics
It literally is. We are discussing the nature of language. Why are you purposefully presenting yourself as a retard who doesn't understand what I'm talking about?

[Anonymous No.18488701]

>>18488469
>Dictionaries are tyrannical.
"me no like wordbooks"

[Anonymous No.18488723]

>>18488586
Most dictionaires are mainly descriptive, so describe how words are used rather than how they should be used. When people argue for new definitions of politically loaded words like “racism” and “anti-semitic” (sorry if i’m coming off as a /pol/tard), they’re being highly prescriptive, creating definitions based on the way they feel the words should be used, rather than how most people actually use them. David Foster Wallace wrote a great essay on dictionaries (although he’s opposed to your viewpoint and thinks it’s important to have authorities on language): https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWAuthorityAndAmericanUsage2005.pdf

I’d highly recommed you check it out!

[Anonymous No.18488730]

>>18488469
Paul de Man, Nietzschean post-structuralist - language consists of grammar and rhetoric, and these are never in harmony, leaving no meaning stable
Kripke’s Wittgenstein

But your posts sounds a lot like the meta-ethical position of emotivism or non-cognitivism, so maybe you should look that up

[Anonymous No.18488737]

>>18488723
Thank you for being the first sensible poster ITT, I will check it out!

[Anonymous No.18488741]

>>18488469
Dictionaries are great and they're the only thing keeping nonsense languages like English from being utterly nigger-like. They're a sign of civilization and people should be thankful for having them.

[Anonymous No.18488756]

>>18488687
>We are discussing the nature of language
Hey guess what retard that doesn’t make it linguistics, feel free to realize linguistics isn’t a catch-all term that means a discussion about language. Fucks sake, get it together.

[Anonymous No.18488762]

>>18488741
Dictionnaires are only of use by the fact that we cannot read each other minds. They can thus be used pragmatically to learn new words to help us describe the emotional state or signal we are trying to convey to another person.

I'm against the use of dictionaries as a weapon in debates for instance and I see it as logical fallacy (appeal to dictionary, if this fallacy hasn't already been coined)

[Anonymous No.18488764]

>>18488469
Is anyone saving all the retarded Nietzschean threads?

[Anonymous No.18488803]

>>18488762
It's called "appeal to definition" or "argument from dictionary" (https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/).). It all depends on the kind of debate it's happening. It can in certain cases be justified.

[Anonymous No.18488844]

>>18488803
I think the first example in the article you provided is why I'm vehemently against the use of dictionaries as an authority on language:

>Alex: this restaurant is freezing.
>Bob: the dictionary says that ‘freezing’ means “being at the temperature at which water turns into ice or below it”, and it’s clearly not that cold here.

This encapsulates my opposition. It's such a bugman-like way of thinking about languages. The example above for instance would not be possible if we could read each other minds and it further shows the limitations of dictionaries because language ultimately is about conveying emotions or pragmatic intent.

[Anonymous No.18488885]

>>18488844
Yes, that's why before a debate the participants should agree on definitions, no? For example, one can't just have a debate on "racism" as that means different things to different people, so first they would have to settle on a definition.
>This encapsulates my opposition. It's such a bugman-like way of thinking about languages.
Perhaps, but at the same time it's still the best tool we have to a universal index of the uses and definitions of most words in the language.
> because language ultimately is about conveying emotions or pragmatic intent.
That's a bit prescripitive. Language isn't just used for one or two things. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed about "emotions."

[Anonymous No.18488910]

>>18488642
Define objectivity.

[Anonymous No.18489799]

Every word holds a worldview behind it and by using or simply acknowledging it as a real word you accept the worldview behind it. Its not the word that the trouble, all words are meaningless, its the hidden or clear baggage that comes with it.