Struggling for the right word - semantics??

Ethics? Morals?

(Needs a lesson, by the way.)

the Philosophy of language (with sub-division into the relationship between language and reality)?

Sorry, not on par today....

Semantics is a sub-division of semiotics, (you also get pragmatics and... feck... syntactics...) but you're looking past books with that and going into signs, culture, clothing.... you just said books?

I'm going to bow out before I tie myself further into knots. *coughs out Medievalist, Maryn... anyone but me*

Looks like historiography.

I'd like to help, but I am afraid that I am struggling to understand the first bit of text. So I can't really see a word that fits in the second paragraph.

You seem to be arguing that historical records are unreliable. Fair enough, but I'm not sure I would go on to say that most people think that they are allegorical or that they somehow represent all the ills in the world.

Is it really the case that esteemed historians think this? That they have examined the oldest books and concluded that they are not a true record? Which esteemed historians think this way?

If this is reported speech, then you might get away with it. But as plain text I find myself struggling.

As to the second paragraph, one shortcut might be to say "None of us needs a history lesson." But as I don't understand the first bit I am really at a loss to know what to say for the second.

Perhaps if you gave us some more context we could help you more easily.

semiotics

I understand you're presenting dialogue. Therefore, anything can be said.
But the response given is off-track of the first statement.
The first speaker needs to build a better case that the translations of things have become so misconstrued that the original meaning was lost.
It is true, when you have translations of translations of translations, then you lose the truth. Suddenly, a light over-clothing becomes a jacket which becomes a coat. So now the history books says, "... and he was in a coat."
I get the argument. But since esteemed historians write history books, then it's self-contradictory to believe those same historians would believe 'such and such' is allegorical.
So 'semantics' would hold true. But to what?
I agree with Fallen. My tongue is getting twisted.

I'd just call it a "history lesson", since it's primarily about what happened. The language side, a category mistake between figurative and literal language, could be semantics, pragmatics, or rhetorics. Depends on the lecture. All three sound odd to me, because it's really about history; i.e. about what happened rather than about any features of the text.

Instead of a "lesson in ...", I'd use the word "lecture". As in "We don't need a lecture right now."

Or to make the speech a bit zingier, I'd shorten it still further to "Thanks for the lecture. Now can you tell us what we want to know?"

SomethingOrOther said:

Looks like historiography.

Click to expand...

I also think this is the precise word for you to use.

I think that you would be looking for either "historiography" or epistemology or just philosophy. I don't think that semiotics or semantics, because those refer to the meanings of words not to the background facts.

Snick said:

I don't think that semiotics or semantics, because those refer to the meanings of words not to the background facts.

Click to expand...

Well, no, not quite. Semiotics, as used by Saussure, Barthes, Derrida and many uni departments from film studies to rhetoric to sociology to history is something quite more, a whole branch of 20th Century philosophy. From Wikipedia:

"Applications of semiotics include:

• It represents a methodology for the analysis of texts regardless of modality. For these purposes, "text" is any message preserved in a form whose existence is independent of both sender and receiver

In some countries, its role is limited to literary criticism and an appreciation of audio and visual media, but this narrow focus can inhibit a more general study of the social and political forces shaping how different media are used and their dynamic status within modern culture. The use of semiotic methods to reveal different levels of meaning and, sometimes, hidden motivations has led some...to demonisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonization elements of the subject as Marxist, nihilist, etc. (e.g. critical discourse analysis in Postmodernism and deconstruction in Post-Structuralism)"


In an academic setting, this would surely be the known/typical usage of the word...or at least, it still was when I retired from the academic world eight years ago.

If there's only two folk in the conversation, depending upon their relationship it did occur to me that something more direct may apply.

"...have concluded they're not a--"

"Cut the bullshit," said Mary. "Do you know the answer or not?"

Just a thought.

lorna_w said:

Well, no, not quite. Semiotics, as used by Saussure, Barthes, Derrida and many uni departments from film studies to rhetoric to sociology to history is something quite more, a whole branch of 20th Century philosophy. From Wikipedia:

"Applications of semiotics include:

• It represents a methodology for the analysis of texts regardless of modality. For these purposes, "text" is any message preserved in a form whose existence is independent of both sender and receiver

In some countries, its role is limited to literary criticism and an appreciation of audio and visual media, but this narrow focus can inhibit a more general study of the social and political forces shaping how different media are used and their dynamic status within modern culture. The use of semiotic methods to reveal different levels of meaning and, sometimes, hidden motivations has led some...to demonise elements of the subject as Marxist, nihilist, etc. (e.g. critical discourse analysis in Postmodernism and deconstruction in Post-Structuralism)"


In an academic setting, this would surely be the known/typical usage of the word...or at least, it still was when I retired from the academic world eight years ago.

Click to expand...

Semiotics is the study of signs. The term was created by Charles Peirce in the late 19th century. Saussure, Derrida, etc. used the term "semiology", which was in widespread use for a few decades until Eco a a few others discovered that Peirce have set up the whole science of semiotics long before Saussure got to it.

Apparently you haven't read much in semiotics. It really is the study of signs, including communications among animals. Umberto Eco is the best known semioticist, and you might want to read his writings in the subject. There are are many other serious scientists who have published without even mentioning Marx.

I should look at that wiki article. It looks like an exxample of why wikipedia is not considered a serious source for information.

I was thinking epistemology (the nature of knowledge), but historiography (meta-discussion of history, if you will) is probably closer to it. According to the wik, "Furay and Salevouris (1988) define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written — the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians."