confederate flag debate

Xurtio · 07-28-2015, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpnfire

This conversation is pointless. A presupposition of my worldview is that there is intrinsic meaning in the world. When somebody creates something, they assign meaning to it. That's just the way it is to me. Nothing will change my opinion on that, and nothing ever will.

I'm not sure what you're saying. These two ideas seem to be contradictory. Do you think meaning is intrinsic or is it assigned arbitrarily by humans?

Piaget talked about world views and accommodation vs. assimilation. Interesting topic; I think it limits your ability to learn new things if you only assimilate (fit new information to your established world view) rather than accommodate (update your world view with new information).

Wpnfire · 07-28-2015, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

Do you think meaning is intrinsic or is it assigned arbitrarily by humans?

It's both. When somebody creates a new symbol, they assign the meaning to it and that meaning becomes intrinsic and can never be changed. It's like language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Have you seen Eraserhead or The Color of Pomegranites? Several different meanings can be derived from those.

I'm unfamiliar with both of these, but if the creator of each of those purposefully included multiple interpretations, than both interpretations are correct. If the author meant only one iterpretation, than that is the only correct one.

Xurtio · 07-28-2015, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpnfire

It's both. When somebody creates a new symbol, they assign the meaning to it and that meaning becomes intrinsic and can never be changed. It's like language.

This is incorrect about both symbols and language. Their meanings change all the time. How does it "become intrinsic"? Magic mind transfer?

**Frownland** · 07-28-2015, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpnfire

It's both. When somebody creates a new symbol, they assign the meaning to it and that meaning becomes intrinsic and can never be changed. It's like language.

I'm unfamiliar with both of these, but if the creator of each of those purposefully included multiple interpretations, than both interpretations are correct. If the author meant only one iterpretation, than that is the only correct one.

Not necessarily. While those films promote different interpretations, it doesn't mean that there isn't a specific interpretation that the director keeps to itself. We create our own meaning in things. Take Lord of the Flies for example. It's a common interpretation that the pink conch shell is a symbol representing a lack of femininity on the island. When asked about this the author denied that and said that he just imagined it would be pink. Those people aren't wrong with their interpretation because it still creates a more fleshed out and meaningful story. While there is a lot of objective bases for meaning like what a word means, but there are many things that don't fit under that umbrella term. There's just too many different cases to make a broad statement like you have.