Literal - Phil of Language challenging

Post Reply New Topic

Dang. I read the statement "Three rings on the bell meant the bus was full" as literally three rings (loops or hoops) on a bell - not ring-a-dings. I thought that was an interesting signal and wondered at the mechanism to drop the rings onto the bell, and I even sketched it to etch it in my memory. Luckily, I caught this in my homework and not on an assignment to be handed in. I wonder if I do a lot more work than my classmates just trying to get the right "sense" of a word. I absolutely love the subject, it's just that I have a different way with words. I am under the impression I work a whole bunch harder in a comparable time as my classmates. I don't know. Does anyone else get that feeling? I guess I could put this down in the 'school' forum ... but I think it is analogous to other tasks as well - personally and professionally. Things can take 'that much more effort." I find the same challenges filling out forms, for example, or answering questions which people seem to take straightforward, but I get another interpretation out of them and get confused at which version is actually being requested.

I don't think you were wrong. The first thing that came to mind to me was the same. If that is the exact wording I can see why it threw you off. I think it should be 'rings OF the bell', that way it wouldn't be as confusing. One of my quirks is that I like to read legal documents because they are logical and exact. In the real world I feel like you do because most people have an ability to instinctively understand what people meant while I have to sort through multiple possibilities to pick the best fit. Even then I'm not sure sometimes.

I thought the same thing when I first read the sentence.
Oddly worded sentences always trigger my literal thinking at first until I figure out how it should be worded.
It should go "Three rings of the bell meant the bus was full"

Oh, good - I thought "on" was strange. Maybe it is an archaic use - but I don't think the essay is that old. I'm glad it is not just me. I started sweating about what I don't catch.

Philosophy and language in the same class? I think I would fail.

I read it the same way at first, and often have to reread sentences when certain words have a double-meaning.

For a split second I thought of 'rings' like "the rings of Saturn".

But then realized that they mean ding-a-ling rings.

But the fault is in the wording.

They say "three rings ON the bell", and not "three rings OF the bell".

So that leads one think of visual "rings".

But it also makes you wonder- never thought about the fact the ring in wedding ring as the same word as the sound made by a bell. I wonder if they are related entomylogically?

That's a really interesting question.

Nah, it's just onomatopoeia. ding makes more sense.

Wow, onomatopoeia is a b***h to spell.

Yes Tongan is a tough language.

I've been known to make similar mistakes from time to time, but it's rather minor in my case, more of a speed bump while reading. I'm usually able to catch it right away and keep going.

I guess I'm the only one who automatically took it as the intended meaning.

To me, I've heard buses give off a ringing sound, but the only physical rings I've seen on buses were on people's fingers. So it doesn't make sense to me to take it as physical rings.

I do show literal tendencies with other statements, but with that one, I didn't stumble at all. I had to do a double take to even figure out how you misinterpreted it.

My guess is that most people would not have trouble with that sentence.

First, I read it correctly, then I had that "wait, what?" moment, went back to the beginning of the sentence, pictured basically what Logicalmom pictured, then thought "Nah! No way, that seems illogical to me, that on must be a typo" and moved on. Had to smile when I continued to read the rest of the post.
It doesn't happen in every case, but it happens from time to time. In most cases it's the belated "wait, what?" moment I explained above. Somehow it's less bad in English (being a language I learned in school) than in a native language of mine, honestly I have no idea why.

The problem I had with it (and in general) is that an image pops up in my head based on the literal meaning. It just happens instantly and I have no spontaneous control over how the image is created. I can analyze the image and determine the person must have meant something else by comparing it to other possible images and picking the best fit, but it is a conscious process that takes time even though it may only be a few seconds. I can't help but think that most people do the filtering subconsciously, similar to how most people filter unwanted/irrelevant sounds. I also have a problem filtering sound btw.

Both interpretations are accurate from a literal perspective.
Naturally I interpret it as the one that makes the most sense under the circumstances.

In situations where no literal interpretation makes sense, however, I tend to make one attempt at cross-references with known mundie non-literalisms... and if that doesn't yield any sensible results, I just dismiss whatever it is as rampant, blithering idiocy... and ignore it.

Even so, however, the phrase "three rings on the bell meant the bus was full" might not give me any trouble as regards the kind of rings being discussed... but the term "full" definitely requires greater clarification. What is the upper limit at which the bus could be determined to be "full"? Is it when people refuse to board as they could not be comfortable? Or is it more of a Tetris scenario... with people crammed into every available space until there isn't even enough room for oxygen any more? Thinking sensibly, it could hardly be called "full" if one does not achieve maximum human flesh capacity. If people aren't being crushed to death in there, then there is always room for at least one more.


And yes... forms are unpleasant... often because the requests are not crystal-clear, and I'm not one to gamble my answer with insufficient clarity... unless it is utterly irrelevant, but even then... -_-;

Whoa! What a neat discussion from equally neat and brilliant people - sincerely. This whole thread is an example of why I am in philosophy of language and what I love about it - in spite of my "different way of thinking." I wish I could "read" my prof - when he asks 'what I mean', then doesn't say anything in reply ... I have no idea if I have made any sense at all. I see what I am saying, literally see what I am saying - but I do lose people in translation.

Magnanimous, I love how you "pushed" full . I suspect you would excel in this class. I would love to take this class with a group from WP. That would be SO cool!