"The kid is good at following the rules of language"


Do you understand them? (the rules of language)

Don't change the subject. Put forth an interpretation which supports your claim about what Joe's honest answer "should be". I don't think that you know what it would take for that claim to be true.

I know what it takes, but you obviously don't see it.

You seem to be having trouble with the meaning of "literal".

creative, when I say "literal", do you apply that to my thoughts or to the words of the question themselves?

I don't believe you. I think you're lying. Put forth an interpretation of the question which supports your claim of what Joe's honest answer "should be".

With your invocation of "literal", you've done nothing more than skewer yourself with yet another of your own claims. The literal interpretation according to the definition you offered is the one that I'm putting to use. Therefore if Joe was, as you suggested, taking the question literally, then the only possible honest answer, in the given context, would be "yes".

That is true because according to the definition you provided the literal translation of "Are you alone?" is the primary meaning of the expression. Thus, the literal translation is - as already discussed ad nauseum - "Are you alone, or are others besides you and I present, but unseen?" That is the primary meaning of the expression, therefore, it is the literal meaning per your definition of literal.

Your appeal to a "literal translation" simply doesn't work.

Fess up dude. Your argument is nonsense. Lay it down and walk away from it. Stop trying to defend such nonsense. You cannot say that Joe's honest answer to Jill's question "Are you alone?" should be "no" without depending upon a nonsensical interpretation of the question. If your claim logically depends upon nonsense, then the claim is nonsense. If you disagree, then put forth another sensible interpretation other than the literal one, which lends support to your claim of what Joe's honest answer "should be".

In order to posit what Joe's honest answer "should be", it must be based upon something explicable.

LOL!

You really don't know anything, huh?

Definition of EXPRESSION
1a : an act, process, or instance of representing in a medium (as words) : utterance <freedom of expression> b (1) : something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something else <this gift is an expression of my admiration for you> (2) : a significant word or phrase (3) : a mathematical or logical symbol or a meaningful combination of symbols (4) : the detectable effect of a gene; also : expressivity 1
2a : a mode, means, or use of significant representation or symbolism; especially : felicitous or vivid indication or depiction of mood or sentiment <read the poem with expression> b (1) : the quality or fact of being expressive (2) : facial aspect or vocal intonation as indicative of feeling
3: an act or product of pressing out

And for bonus points, I'll bold the pertinent parts of the definition which you failed to comprehend.




So, the expression was and still is the exact words you wrote, no more, no less. The literal interpretation does NOT add data like you would have everyone believe with your repeated nonsense.


So now, please keep going on and on about how your "literal" interpretation invalidates my claims. It's not my fault you don't understand the basic principals of language, but it sure is funny as Hades!

The "literal" interpretation should be as follows if, as per your setup, Jill entered the room.

Q. "Are you alone?"
A. "No" or with more detail... "No, you are in here too."


Please continue to debate this very simple fact, I think it's hillarious!

Nonsense.

In order for "no" to be an honest answer "Are you alone?" would have to mean "Are you alone or am I here too?" That is nonsense. If your argument depends upon nonsense, then your argument is reduced to nonsense.

It is also quite clear that you're ignorant of how to use a dictionary. You're using several different definitions of the same word in an attempt to make sense of what you're saying. The fallacy is called equivocation. The numbers beside the different definitions indicate the most common uses of a term. Not all them them apply to all situations. The applicable definition of "literal" is 1b. Specifically when it clearly states the primary meaning of an expression.

"Are you alone" is an expression. The primary meaning is the primary use. The primary use does not ask the listener to count the speaker.

Hilarious!

This is really funny.

You think you can change definitions.

The primary meaning is what's written. Everything else is secondary or "inferred".


Please continue, this is entertaining.

I see nothing funny at all here. I think it is rather sad. You're arguing - quite literally - from ignorance.

All meaning is inferred.

When we look at what an expression means we look at how it is being used. The most common uses are numbered in the dictionary beginning at 1 and continuing from there.

You're committing yourself to say that a literal interpretation "should be" nonsensical. I disagree. We throw nonsense out. If you wish to build subsequent belief upon nonsense, then go right ahead. That is entirely up to you. I'll not follow your misbegotten path. The "literal" interpretation is the primary meaning of an expression. The primary meaning is the one most often used. The above does not follow from that, rather it depends upon a nonsensical interpretation.

In order for your claim to make sense, the primary meaning of the expression "Are you alone?" would have to be "Are you alone, or am I here too?" That is nonsense. It follows that your claim relies upon nonsense. A claim cannot rely upon nonsense and make sense at the same time. Therefore, your position does not make sense.

Do with it what you may. I've nothing further to say to you regarding this matter.

<<< think hard Mr bean says 1 of you 2 will work it out lollllll

What a sheetload of nonsense.

I suppose if Jill had asked that same question of Joe over the phone and I took the literal stance you would still try to pin your nonsensical interpretation to my claims, huh?


http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/literal.php
*edited to add the paragraphs as I know some will not follow the link.*

"TUTORIAL M01: Understanding literal meaning
M01.1 Introduction
Literal meaning is a property of linguistic expressions. Roughly speaking, the literal meaning of a complex sequence of words is determined by its grammatical properties and the meanings that are conventionally assigned to those words. The literal meaning of a statement should be distinguished from its conversational implicature - the information that is implicitly conveyed in a particular conversational context, distinct from the literal meaning of the statement.
For example, suppose we ask Lily whether she wants to go to the cinema and she replies, "I am very tired." Naturally we would infer that Lily does not want to go to the cinema. But this is not part of the literal meaning of what is said. Rather, the information that she does not want to go is conveyed in an implicit manner. Similarly, suppose we hear Lala says, "Po likes books". We might perhaps take Lala to be saying that Po likes to read. But this is only the conversational implicature, and not part of the literal meaning of what is being said. It might turn out that Po hates reading and she likes books only because she regards them as good investment. But even if this is the case, Lala's assertion is still true.

One important point illustrated by this example is that when we want to find out whether a statement is true, it is its literal meaning that we should consider, and not its conversational implicature. This is particularly important in the legal context. The content of a contract is typically given by the literal meaning of the terms of the contract, and if there is a dispute about the contract ultimately it is normally settled by looking at the literal meaning of the terms, and not by what one or the other party thinks was implied implicitly. "





No, obviously you don't...




D---(]

Can I pull my pants up now?

I have to agree with Peter in that if a person is totally literal and totally logical (like a robot) they might truthfully answer--

"No, you are in here too."

True, that most humans have the ability to assume that the speaker is not including himself, but a robot looking at the situation as it is (literally) would have to include the speaker.

Q: "Are you alone?"
A: "Not any more."

Q: "Are you alone?"
A: "I was until you got here."

Q: Are you alone?"
A: Not counting you and the mouse in my pocket, yes, I'm alone."

Pan is no longer talking honesty. He's changed over to talk about whether or not Joe's answer is true. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts. The fact is...

We're not looking at whether or not Joe's answer is true. We're looking at whether or not Joe's answer is honest.

All honest answers are not necessarily true, and all true answers are not necessarily honest. To quite the contrary, the honesty of an answer to a question is solely determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. Joe believes he's alone, Jill notwithstanding.

The only way that "no" could be an honest answer is if the question means "Are you alone, or am I here too?" Over the phone, the question cannot mean that. Thus, the only honest answer would be "yes". In person, which is the case at hand, no one asks another that question expecting the listener to count the questioner. If that were what the question meant, it would not even be asked.