About this "meaning"

[Sustacel250]

In the anglo language they use "meaning" but in my tongue there is no equivalent.

For my tongue to say "meaning" it is semantic and it relates to what a word or a symbol or a sentence refers to. So when I say "meaning" I may refer to a dictionary definition or a clarification of a statement I made.

In the angloworld there seems to be an equivalent when they say "what does this word means?" so far is understandable.

But there is a secondary usage of the word "meaning" by anglos. They talk about significance, the transcendental philosophy or some wisdom literature related stuff. Its almost incomprehensible and made me scratch my head puzzled "what the fuck is he talking about".

Example: "life can be suffering but it is also meaningful". In my tongue it would make absolutely no sense. Unless I worded it like this "life can be suffering but it can have a reason to be lived". In that way I can approximate more or less what I understand of this word "meaning".

In english 2 domains are collapsed. And what they have is semantic meaning and existential meaning just use the same word.

What does peterson means by saying "meaning". He means this: A psychologically and morally organizing structure that makes suffering bearable by orienting normie actions towards goals established by theologians.

In my tongue I would say maybe "a structure of sense that justifies sacrifice" and I would relate it to the discourse about ideology.

I find this sort of an unfair rhetorical advantage, leveraged with ambiguity and almost impossible to discuss. Theres sort of a bug in anglo language that allows this infamy to take place. I think people like peterson should be exposed as the fraud they are.