Comments on “Existentialism: a muddled middle”

Comments

I know this is a stub, but...

One might say that it lives in the space-between subject and object; or that it pervades the situation in which it manifests, including both subject and object. But these metaphors are misleading; meanings simply don’t have locations.

Is there already an explanation somewhere why these metaphors are misleading? Why would it be harmful to say that meanings live simultaneously both inside and outside a person?

Not located

Is there already an explanation somewhere why these metaphors are misleading?

Not yet, I'm afraid!

Why would it be harmful to say that meanings live simultaneously both inside and outside a person?

Well... "misleading" rather than "harmful." Just because meanings don't have locations. They depend on things that have locations (brains; road signs), but it just doesn't make any sense to say they are located themselves.

Add new comment

Navigation

This page is in the section Meaning and meaninglessness,
      which is in Doing meaning better.

The next page in this section is Meaningness: the complete stance.

The previous page is Nihilism. (That page introduces its own subsection.)

This page’s topic is Meaningness.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2017 David Chapman.