Comments on: Confusion About Meaning

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:46:00 +0000

Thank you for the clarification Mr. Badke. Looking back on this now, especially in light of your recent comment, I agree with you and I was simply confused about what you meant (how's that for irony). If nothing else, your comment cleared things up for me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:52:00 +0000

As the author of the source of this controversy, William Badke himself, I thought I'd weigh in. To say that there is inherent meaning in the words we use even if no one else grasps that meaning is, of course, true. Words do refer. If I say to myself, “Look at that gjrao,” but I'm looking at a rock, I have used a word (gjrao) to which I have given meaning, and that meaning is certain in my mind.
The fallacy in this kind of thinking, however, is that no one else knows what gjrao means unless you put it into a context, which could be as simple as pointing at the rock. Words are not simply a means for internal dialogue and internal meaning but for communication. The moment a word leaves me to make a connection with you, the inherent meaning it had in my own brain is lost or at least confused. You may know what “gjrao” means, but I don't until you give me a context. Which comes down to may main point – that all information is by nature contextual, because the understanding demanded in communication makes context a requirement.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:54:00 +0000

I dunno, Rog. I agree with you, but I think you're understanding Badke differently because I agree with him as well. Reading the passage you quoted, I understood Badke's meaning of what he is saying, especially in keeping within the context of what he is trying to teach. I don't think Badke would disagree with you concerning words having meaning(s), but within the context of Badke's subject matter, he's basically saying the same things as you are...he's just worded it badly. For example: "Words by themselves don't really mean anything for certain." He's not saying that words don't have meaning. He's just saying you cannot be certain of it's use/meaning without the context surrounding it. "They only have a definite meaning when you put them in a context." If trying to understand a word within a context, then he probably should have said something to the effect that you would get the correct use/meaning of a word when viewed within its context. So, he's not saying words have no meaning. But when doing research, and you are having to sift through papers and recordings, the correct meaning of the words being used are found within the context. Anyway, hope you're doing well in seminary! In Christ, Victor

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:40:00 +0000

I think I was pretty clear, “but it does not follow from that fact that

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:48:00 +0000

I'm not clear on where you think Badke erred. You say that our language, which refers to things, includes some words that refer to multiple things. He seems to be saying that to understand the meaning of a word (especially one that refers to multiple things, like rock), one must read that word in the context of a sentence, paragraph, etc.
That seems to me to fit. I'm not sure what you are saying Badke got wrong if you state words often refer to more than one thing and that context helps you identify the meaning in a particular instance.