The purpose of speech

[scratch]

Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct?  His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform?  I still think that is incorrect.  If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of?  It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief. 

My orginal point still stands, the purpose of speech is to convince.  I made that point clear at the end in my previous reply.

In by saying "Hi" you are convincing the other person that you acknowledge them/their existance; you're making them aware that you are aware of them.  Same as saying, "Greetings".

Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer.  You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing".  And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge.  You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.

Questions convince the listener that you do not know something, or again, try to convince the listener that either you don't know something, or in a rhetorical question, you trying to convince the listener to think about something.  You might say you are relaying a lack of knowledge.  But, it is still trying to convince somebody, even if it's not you.

[scratch]

Also, regarding cursing, if in by doing so, have you not convinced yourself of your displeasure?

Singing along to a song...hmmm...are you not convinced to sing along?  To say the same words the singer is?  To inflect the same, or a similar, feeling?  Is not the singer trying to illicit a feeling from the listener?  Or, tell a story?  So, by singing along, tell that same story?  And, by singing along are you not convincing yourself to feel a certain way?

[scottpA_GS]

Singing along to a song...hmmm...are you not convinced to sing along?  To say the same words the singer is?  To inflect the same, or a similar, feeling?  Is not the singer trying to illicit a feeling from the listener?  Or, tell a story?  So, by singing along, tell that same story?  And, by singing along are you not convincing yourself to feel a certain way?

[MrDan]

Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct?  His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform?  I still think that is incorrect.  If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of?  It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief. 

My orginal point still stands, the purpose of speech is to convince.  I made that point clear at the end in my previous reply.

In by saying "Hi" you are convincing the other person that you acknowledge them/their existance; you're making them aware that you are aware of them.  Same as saying, "Greetings".

Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer.  You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing".  And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge.  You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.

Questions convince the listener that you do not know something, or again, try to convince the listener that either you don't know something, or in a rhetorical question, you trying to convince the listener to think about something.  You might say you are relaying a lack of knowledge.  But, it is still trying to convince somebody, even if it's not you.

I think the problem with that argument is "convince".  To convince requires a previous state of disbelief or disagreement.  If, when I say "Hi", the person is convinced that I believe they exist, then they have serious issues.  That would require that they either a) believed themselves NOT to exist at all, or b) to belive that I did not think they existed.  Convince is completely the wrong definition in that case.  Descartes said "I THINK therefore I am", not "Someone said HI to me, therefore I am".

Regarding questions, I stand by what I said, Questions might convey information and by extension convince someone to form an opinion, but they do not, by the very nature of being speech, convince someone. 

[scratch]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. 

I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.

If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence.  Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.

Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.

Descartes (or whoever it was), convinced himself of his own existance by his own thoughts, obviously, not by someone else's.  And, his statement thereafter is the reinforcement of that conviction, but his (or your) application still does not disprove that the purpose of speech is to convince.  You are confusing existance with conviction.

[MrDan]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. 

I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.

If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence.  Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.

Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.

Wow ...

You might want to look up convince again.  I know you posted a definition, but did you read it?  Here it is again

3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action

It requires that there is a previous state of mind which, by speaking, you change.  If I'm convincing you that I acknowledge you when I say "hi", that would DEMAND that you had no way of knowing I knew you existed.  The only way that saying "hi" would serve as the only means to convince you I was acknowledging you was if you were blind, crazy, or thought you were invisible.  By looking at you, smiling, waving, etc, I am showing that I am aware of your presense.  Speaking to you can therefore not convince you of anything since your belief will not change based on my speech.

As for questions, while questions can impart a lack of information, they do not have to.  An example that ties the 2 points together.  If we'd known each other for years (and known each other's names for years), and I say "My name is Dan, what is my name?" to you, I am asking a question.  However, it does not ask for any bit of information that is not known to all parties involved.  By your definition of speech, it would require me to convince you that something you thought is incorrect and change your mind.  This would not be true either.

A truly rhetorical question will neither convince anyone of anything nor impart a lack of knowledge.

I miss writing my philosophy and rhetoric papers but sheesh.

[scratch]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. 

I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.

If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence.  Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.

Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.

Wow ...

You might want to look up convince again.  I know you posted a definition, but did you read it?  Here it is again

3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action

It requires that there is a previous state of mind which, by speaking, you change.  If I'm convincing you that I acknowledge you when I say "hi", that would DEMAND that you had no way of knowing I knew you existed.  The only way that saying "hi" would serve as the only means to convince you I was acknowledging you was if you were blind, crazy, or thought you were invisible.  By looking at you, smiling, waving, etc, I am showing that I am aware of your presense.  Speaking to you can therefore not convince you of anything since your belief will not change based on my speech.

What if you come up behind me?

Why would you even say "hi"?  Answer that and you've found your reason why it is speech and it convinces.

As for questions, while questions can impart a lack of information, they do not have to.  An example that ties the 2 points together.  If we'd known each other for years (and known each other's names for years), and I say "My name is Dan, what is my name?" to you, I am asking a question.  However, it does not ask for any bit of information that is not known to all parties involved.  By your definition of speech, it would require me to convince you that something you thought is incorrect and change your mind.  This would not be true either.

A truly rhetorical question will neither convince anyone of anything nor impart a lack of knowledge.

I miss writing my philosophy and rhetoric papers but sheesh.

Right, a rhetorical question can convince someone to think about something.  It is still speech and is trying to convince.

If you and I did know each other, and you said, "My name is Dan, what is my name?"; why would you have said that if not to convince me of something?

[MrDan]

Right, a rhetorical question can convince someone to think about something.  It is still speech and is trying to convince.

If you and I did know each other, and you said, "My name is Dan, what is my name?"; why would you have said that if not to convince me of something?

That's the thing ... I'd say it because I wanted to.  There does not always need to be a purpose to speech.  What is someone who has tourette's trying to convince you of when they speak?  Answer me that and I'll accept your argument that speech is ONLY to convince.  That would be a vocal utterance which constitutes speech but which has no thought behind it and therefore cannot convey any ideas that would serve to convince anyone of anything.

How about another example.  What is someone who talks in their sleep trying to convince you of? 

Also, you've already somewhat ceded your point ... I italicized the pertinent part.

[For the record, I'm not trying to say people with tourette's cannot talk intelligently - just that some of the things they say cannot be controlled - those are the ones that apply here]

What if you come up behind me?

Why would you even say "hi"?  Answer that and you've found your reason why it is speech and it convinces.

Since this is a hypothetical situation anyway, I did not come up from behind you.  I was walking towards you waving and smiling.  Once close enough, I said "Hi" which only served to reinforce what I had already expressed (non verbally) by waving and smiling.  Thus - no convincing.   And why would I say "hi" in that situation?  To be polite.

[bettingpython]

Hello George. How are you today?

What am I trying to convince either george or myself of?

[scratch]

Someone who has Tourette's, cannot control their speech, so how can it even be considered speech?  And, remember some utterances are sounds, without meaning, sounds are just that, sounds, and nothing more; even if they said, "the".  But, if he said, "there", would you not think of there (wherever that being)?

And, by you saying, "hi", would you not be convincing me of your being polite?

[MrDan]

Someone who has Tourette's, cannot control their speech, so how can it even be considered speech?  And, remember some utterances are sounds, without meaning, sounds are just that, sounds, and nothing more; even if they said, "the".  But, if he said, "there", would you not think of there (wherever that being)?

And, by you saying, "hi", would you not be convincing me of your being polite?

Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak.  You can't dismiss it that easily.  Try again.

And I'm only convincing you I'm being polite IF I TELL YOU I'M BEING POLITE.  Without me saying that, you would have to both believe that I was NOT polite, and interpret my saying "Hi" as an attempt to be polite.

The important part of your argument is that the person listening has to have a change of belief for anything to be considered speech.  If what I say in no way affects what you think/believe, then by your definition, it would not be speech - ludacrious.

[scratch]

You are focusing on one part of the definition of convince.  The other is: to bring about an action.

Do you listen?  Do you listen to someone who has Tourette's?  If you ignore them, do you not choose the opposite of being convinced?

[MrDan]

You are focusing on one part of the definition of convince.  The other is: to bring about an action.

Do you listen?  Do you listen to someone who has Tourette's?  If you ignore them, do you not choose the opposite of being convinced?

Now that raises an interesting question.  If someone speaks, and you choose to ignore them, and are thereby unconvinced ... did they speak at all?

Regarding "to bring about an action".  I'd like to see how you'd define that.  If you say "hi" to someone, what action is brought about?

[scratch]

Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak.

And...

If they can still speak, can they not convince?

And I'm only convincing you I'm being polite IF I TELL YOU I'M BEING POLITE.  Without me saying that, you would have to both believe that I was NOT polite, and interpret my saying "Hi" as an attempt to be polite.

Not true, I would not assume that you were polite or being polite.

The important part of your argument is that the person listening has to have a change of belief for anything to be considered speech.  If what I say in no way affects what you think/believe, then by your definition, it would not be speech - ludacrious.

Nope, you do not have to bring about a change in belief, an attempt is all that is needed.

[MrDan]

Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak.

And...

If they can still speak, can they not convince?

I don't see your point.  Their speech is not changing your beliefs and does not bring about action.  It's just speech without meaning.  How could that serve to convince (by any definition).

[scratch]

But could it not be argued that to inform and to convince someone are slightly different.

Yes, but to inform someone you are still trying to convince them of what you are informing them of.  If I inform you that the sky is blue, or, it's raining outside, have I not convinced you that the sky is indeed blue and that it's raining outside (and not inside)?

If you were, for example, to "inform me" (tell me) of the aforementioned meeting at 10.00 you are simply dictating to me details of a meeting that as far as i know may or may not happen. To convince me would you not need to provide proof of the meeting to back up the claim of the meeting happening at 10.00

See example of raining above.  Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red?  Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is trying to convince you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.

For example the cavemans' "Uh" may be just a sound but if they made the "Uh" sound and pointed at a rock could you be convinced that "Uh" meant rock or involved something to do with rock. If you have thus put meaning and convinced a meaning to the sound "Uh" would that not reclassify it as speech - a way of communicating or convincing.

Correct.  If you assign any sound a meaning, including whistling, is has become a form of speech.

Moving back slightly and with a counterpoint - inform and convince being separate meanings - in our culture today could it be said that if you informed someone you have in turn convinced them, simply due to the factor that we have learned that to coexist we have to trust and therefore if you informed me of a meeting at 10.00 i would likely be convinced as i had no reason to doubt you. This does not necessarily have to have applied forever though. We often work on the principle - innocent till proven guilty, or true till proved wrong. Unless i saw good reason to not believe you i would default to being convinced.

See my reply to spcterry

Edit: to answer your edit.

When you whistle you are making a sound using your lips, if the sound is for yourself, your own tune and not interacting with anyone else or the environment then its a sound. If you whistle at someone would you not be implying meaning in your sound, You whistle at a passer by you are implying a meaning to your whistle, however i wouldn't classify this as speech,  although you have communicated a meaning you haven't convinced the passer by of the meaning, in this situation where you don't know the whistler you would default to convince yourself of your own belief of the meaning of the whistle.

It doesn't matter weather you believe it or not, it is still trying to convince you of something, and it could be anything, but you are correct in stating that without assigning a meaning it is only a tune.

[MrDan]

See example of raining above.  Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red?  Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is trying to convice you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.

That implies intent ... sure you want to go down that road?

[scratch]

You first? 

The purpose of speech is to convince.  So the intent of speech is to convince.

[MrDan]

You first? 

The purpose of speech is to convince.  So the intent of speech is to convince.

Wow .. so let's break that down.

P = Purpose
S = Speech
C = Convince
I = Intent

PS = C
P ~ I
IS = C

Problem there is that P does not always = I.  So you cannot make that logical deduction

Conversely, if someone speaks with no intent (words in nonsensical sentences, tourettes, etc), then they are speaking without trying to convince. 

If were having this converstaion in person, then your speech would be to convince.  However, since I'm sitting here just saying "wow", that is not the case.  Noone can hear me, noone can be convinced (in any way) but what I say, does that mean I'm not actually speaking?

[Kasumi]

This is like the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound lol.