Questions
B. Kane Lyrics

Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴

You go out when you get ready
And you come home when you please
You just love me when you want me baby
And you think it outta be alright with me

When I try to talk, talk to you baby
And let you know just how I feel
You tell me if I don't like it

You know someone else will

Oh, but I done got wise to you baby
You're not the only bird in the sky
Oh so don't ask me no questions now baby
And I, I won't tell you no lies

Because I like to feel arms around me
And lips close, close to mine
So I don't have to beg you to love me
I don't have to beg you all the time

Oh, but I done got wise to you baby
You're not the only bird in the sky
So now don't you ask me no questions
And you know I won't, I won't tell you no lies

Yes you can love me if you want me
Or you keep on playing the field

Because I know if you don't love me
I know there's somebody else that will

Overall Meaning

The lyrics to B. Kane's song Questions describe a relationship that is not quite what it should be. The singer expresses their frustration with their partner's flippant attitude towards their relationship, as they come and go as they please and only show love when it suits them. The singer attempts to communicate their feelings to their partner, but is met with dismissal, as their partner tells them to accept the situation or someone else will. However, the singer has caught on to their partner's behaviors and realizes that they are not the only one in the relationship, and they won't be telling any lies about it. The singer is willing to accept their partner's love if it's genuine, but they won't waste their time begging for it or being lied to.

The song portrays a very relatable situation where one person is invested in a relationship while the other is not fully committed. The lyrics paint a picture of a relationship where one partner is being taken for granted, and the other is content to keep things as they are without consideration for their partner's feelings. The song's message is one of empowerment, as the singer has reached a point where they will no longer tolerate being second-best in the relationship, and they are willing to move on if necessary.

Line by Line Meaning

You go out when you get ready
You come and go as you please without any regard for my feelings or needs.

And you come home when you please
You do not have any specific time to return and you just come home when it is convenient for you.

You just love me when you want me baby
Your love is not consistent, and it is only when it is convenient for you.

And you think it outta be alright with me
You believe that I should be okay with your inconsistent love and behavior.

When I try to talk, talk to you baby
When I attempt to communicate with you about how I feel,

And let you know just how I feel
And express my emotions and thoughts to you,

You tell me if I don't like it
You respond by telling me that if I am not okay with it,

You know someone else will
Someone else will be okay with the situation.

Oh, but I done got wise to you baby
But I have become aware of your true nature,

You're not the only bird in the sky
You are not the only person in the world, and I do not need to rely on you solely for love and attention.

Oh so don't ask me no questions now baby
Therefore, do not inquire about my thoughts, feelings, or actions now, my dear.

And I, I won't tell you no lies
I will not lie to you, but I will not disclose everything to you either.

Because I like to feel arms around me
I want to feel the embrace of a caring and affectionate individual,

And lips close, close to mine
With lips close to mine, indicating love and passion.

So I don't have to beg you to love me
So, I should not have to plead for you to love me,

I don't have to beg you all the time
I should not have to do it constantly for you to show me love or give me affection.

Yes you can love me if you want me
You can choose to love me if that is what you want,

Or you keep on playing the field
Otherwise, you can continue playing around with others.

Because I know if you don't love me
I acknowledge that if you do not love me,

I know there's somebody else that will
There are other people who would be willing to love and cherish me just as I deserve.

Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group
Written by: RILEY B. KING

Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind

To comment on or correct specific content, highlight it

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Comments from YouTube:

@KaneB

8w↑2

Quine on indeterminacy of meaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Q19GwfGU0

@EdgarQer

8w↑7

How strange it is that today I decided to read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and understand Quine's criticism, and then this video comes out

@rv706

8w↑8

I actually read Quine's "Two dogmas" paper. I found it utterly unconvincing.

@KaneB

8w↑18

>> I found it utterly unconvincing

POV: You've decided to read what Quine wrote.

@DellDuckfan313

8w↑9

"Triangles have five sides"

@GottfriedLeibnizYT

8w↑7

Wow! I've been waiting so long for this!
Please do Quine's "Epistemology Naturalized" also if you feel like it.

@jmike2039

8w↑1

SAME AND YES

@HerrEinzige

8w↑6

It is analytically and synthetically true that I have liked and commented on this video.

@KaneB

Thanks!

@captainstrangiato961

8w↑2

Just got to Kant in my Modern Phil class. Great timing!

@jmike2039

8w↑1

Yesss been waiting for this for some time. Thanks Kane you rock 🔴

@JohhnyBoyNu

8w↑2

This is so awesome lol i literally have an exam on this on thursday

@KaneB

Hope it's helpful!

@martinbennett2228

8w↑1

Your reference to Andrew Wiles and Fermat's last theorem interested me because I have used it myself in my own teaching. I was expecting you to follow up on this.

To me the point is that there there is nothing intrinsic to the idea that Aˣ = Bˣ + Cˣ cannot be satisfied where x > 2. However for a long time this was accepted as empirically true. Then (after a false start) Andrew Wiles makes the claim that he has a mathematical/ logical proof, subsequently his proof is accepted by other leading mathematicians. At this point something has changed: although I (along with most others) cannot understand the proof, I can understand that at for those, at the very least, who do understand the proof any further empirical attempts to investigate possible values for x are utterly futile in a way that was not so, before Wiles' work.

Whatever Quine has to say about distinctions between analytic and synthetic, we need a concept to distinguish between the two states of understanding. Perhaps we could contend that propositions are either synthetic a priori or synthetic a posteriori and that analytic is only applicable within strictly defined local situations. Even there I see a problem because I would want to distinguish between statements that triangles have three straight sides (usually accepted as analytic a priori) and that the interior angles of a triangle add up to a straight line (arguably synthetic a priori).

@PiFiFo

8w↑1

Thanks for another video.

@drewhallett

8w↑1

I remember finding the exact spot in Word and Object where he makes the argument, and I was like "wait, that's it?"

@KaneB

8w↑6

I have that reaction to a lot of Quine's work. Even where I tend to agree with his conclusions, the arguments are often surprisingly weak. It's a little puzzling that he was so influential.

@InventiveHarvest

Circular arguments are good as long as the circle is progressing. The concept of definitions has been progressing to new knowledge for thousands of years. I think Quine gets confused because he thinks apriori statements must be necessarily true or false, but we can always find counterexamples to conjectures, even the proven conjectures.

@monkerud2108

i think the difference is something like the difference between sentences talking about blue, vs sentences talking about cars. it is not a distinction that matters for knowledge as we experience and hold it. i didn't go into the difference between analytic and synthetic, but i don't think it is strictly necessary, because in the context where knowledge and meaning is actual, there is not such divide at all, there is just the meaning of words and sentences as they are used, and the experience of understanding something. a sentence like "red is red" is on the one hand a truism that can be experiences as a sentence of that form, or a statement that "red means the experience of red" which just points to the experience of red in thought, whether it is about observing red or thinking about it, these two ways to view the analytic statement are just the same as when saying "kafka is a writer", the sentence just says that this kafka entitiy is a writer, meaning he fits the definition of a writer, the experience of kafka is the experience of reading, thinking about, or talking to a writer, whatever that means, when it comes to the relevant part of kafka, the world could have been otherwise, kafka could have been a plumber, but then we need to separate what we are actually talking about when we say something like that. first of all plubmer kafka is not the same kafka, it is no different than saying red could have been blue, only that for kafka, being a writer is not as all encompassing of the features of kafka as kafka can appear in thought. second, the words themselves could have been synonyms, the reason we know the case of red and the case of kafka is different in the first place is because we are leaning on our preconceived pre language game noitions, of writer, kafka and red. lastly, the only way to know the difference, and to unknown that red can't have different meanings in different positons in a sentence, are precisely these notions that exists in our experience of thinking prior to writing down a single argument about sentences, what it feels like to write or utter differently structured sentences and what it feels like to mean different things by them. so i hope you see what i mean, i don't think i can go much deeper into it right now, way too sleepy, i liked your video, i just think this issue is a lot deeper than just making arguments about structure and the content of our experience of thinking, i think we absolutely must be critical of what the experience of thinking and meaning actually is, and how concepts are rooted in it, and that logic and argumentation within language can only really gesture at what the problem is, and why there is really only one form of knowledge, and subcategories that are only applicable within language games and so on. anyway have a good day sir, nice video :). i think kant almost did it right but then got derailed by being too science envious instead of actually being critical he sort of reified an inability to do reason synthetically, without realizing that it is impossible to define terms and so you never actually have a priory knowledge of anything, just within a language game, and there only heuristically, not in any sense that can be called proof, it is not far off from what he argues but it is enough for me to reject it, especially the use of a priory, since i don't believe the term has any meaning at all, a bit like free will, it is a term, nobody can really define it properly without melting it away under scrutiny. i hope this made some sort of sense to you, that was my aim anyway, and the limitations imposed upon us by reality, whatever it is.

@StatelessLiberty

There’s an interesting attack on the analytic synthetic distinction in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, and I find this attack more convincing than Quine’s. Basically Wittgenstein’s point is that Moore’s statement “I have two hands” has the form of an empirical statement and isn’t tautological yet is at the same time empirically unverifiable (because outside of special circumstances it’s inconceivable what it would mean to test it).

@mobili2

Bro uploaded this when I've almost finished SEP entry on the subject matter 😭

@hodgeyhodge8414

By analogy with the two classes of contradiction on the slide at 12:00 do you also distinguish two separate classes of tautology, one of the form "X is a bachelor and it is the case that X is a bachelor" and a broader one of the form "X is an unmarried bachelor"?

@KaneB

Yes, presumably tautologies in the first sense would be analytic statements of the first class, and tautologies in the broader sense would be analytic statements of the second class.

@tunahankaratay1523

I personally hate arguments that try to exploit the ambiguity of the natural language so much that I lose interest in reading the rest of the text. Congratulations, you are the smartest kid in the class! Want a smiley sticker?

@souzousplinters7128

8w↑1

lit vid bruh

@italogiardina8183

The ethnocentric meaning of a sentence depends on the context as within a sub cultural group a gangster leader will mean by a statement through member compliance. Ethnographic vagueness in this sense is when a bushman points at the rabbit utters a statement means giving cattle for a dowery. The issues arise as rationalism demand extant outputs like backing up a car and saying slowly upon which the driver crashes into the wall. Hence driverless cars meaning is quantised through signals of increment millimetres to seconds which have more precise meaning the backup slowly. However as for human ritual around reproductive rites or compliance there is a lived experience component that converges as the analytic content of mind converge with synthetic body political sense data as familiar with the place which is indicted by emotional stability or intelligence. The emotional aspect to meaning is cashed out in a Kantian sense of means to an end distinction where treating people as a means to an end will mean caution and othering/alienation or end in itself in-group hierarchy self evaluation.

@bernardin5947

Fuck yeah thank you

@onion4062

Aren’t mathematical axioms and definitions stipulative though? Hence, preserving the analyticity of mathematics

@KaneB

Yes, that seems plausible to me. I suppose the trouble is that in working out what follows from these axioms and definitions, we're not just stipulating the entailments. Stipulative definition is involved in mathematics but doesn't get us very far.

@danwylie-sears1134

Of course you can make an error in dealing with something that's stipulated. If I'm typing with my left hand out of alignment, and some of my instances of "ff" appear as "gg", that's an error. If I actually state a stipulation that "ff" is to be an abbreviation for "female fox", and you hear me say "ephemeral fox" instead, that's an error. If I make a bunch of abbreviations, and you have to think a bit when you encounter one of them, it's still a stipulated definition. Why should that be any different when the stipulation was done collectively over decades, instead of individually within one lecture?

--

Sydney can't believe that there is a vixen in his garden without believing that there is a female fox in his garden. Believing that there is a vixen in his garden isn't the same as believing that there is something called "a vixen" in his garden. One statement describes only his belief about what's in his garden, and the other describes his belief about the language.

@BumbleTheBard

To some extent, it may be that Quine and Carnap are talking past each other. Quine's criticism is an attack on a priori knowledge, based on his holistic approach to epistemology. Analyticity gets caught up in the criticism because if there are a priori propositions then analytic ones are, and the logical positivists denied the existence of the synthetic *a priori*. Defenders of analyticity focus on what makes a proposition true; Quine is concerned with whether a proposition is exposed to revision for empirical reasons. For Quine, analytic sentences, and even definitions, do not have a privileged epistemological status that makes them immune to revision. So there is no dichotomy among propositions, just a spectrum ranging from more or less exposed to revision. For myself, I think that is correct. There are ways to define 'analytic' but it has no explanatory value in philosophy.

@Ansatz66

But we need to give some sentences privileged epistemic status. We could not communicate effectively without it. The usefulness of language would break down if any word might change its meaning at any time. For example, what evidence do you have that a triangle has three sides, as opposed to two or four? If that is the sort of question we are asking, then we are not ready to even begin to talk about triangles.

@BumbleTheBard

@@Ansatz66I think you may have misunderstood my comment. We do not need sentences to have a privileged status in order for communication to happen, nor to ensure words do not change their meaning. On Quine's view, it is entire theories that confront empirical reality, not individual sentences. Within a theory, it is somewhat arbitrary as to which sentences we treat as axioms, which as definitions, and which as theorems. This is the sense in which I mean that a given sentence does not have any epistemological privileges. Labelling a sentence an axiom or a definition does not confer the status of 'necessary' or 'a priori' on it. The theory of which that sentence is a part is still exposed to revision.

@jackeasling3294

When's the next AMA?

@KaneB

8w↑2

Never

@jackeasling3294

@@KaneB that better be false in all possible worlds 😤

@K1ngsd1

Imagine thinking there are no analytic sentences and therefore no real meanings of the sentences. Philosophers are a funny bunch.

@warrendriscoll350

This is too easy to get around by developing a clear understanding of language, and the concept of aboutness. For example, all definitions are stipulative, because the thing they are about is arbitrary. We analyze not logical interactions between things-in-the-world, but rather between defined terms.

This, perhaps in a disturbing cosmic horror sense, extends to numbers. What is so special about the number one? Turns out there's lots of units, and there's lots of number lines. Quite a few number circles. A bunch of number planes. A few interesting number hyper-doughnuts.

@KaneBsBett

Weird, I thought you already made this one

@KaneB

8w↑2

I might have done. I don't remember all the videos I've made.

@GottfriedLeibnizYT

no, not really.

@Ansatz66

I am pretty sure I would remember if I had seen a video about this before. Nothing else in philosophy frustrates me more than Quine's analysis of analytic propositions.

@monkerud2108

i think this turns out to be a bit meaningless tbh, the meanings of no words are rooted in a language game. there are use cases of all words that are rooted in intuitions, those intuitions are more or less an internal equivalent of finding a shiny rock on the beach, in terms of a persons experience. the only difference is the experience of the meaning of a word instead of the experience of seeing a shiny rock. knowledge comes in that one flavor, when we say something like "red is red" we are basically just saying my experience of red is what red is, that is a referral to a "state of the experiential world" just the same as saying "kafka is a writer" "my experience of the name kafka, is the experience of thinking of the writer kafka" the meaning of the word, always comes from such an operational definition that only ever makes any sense at all by being directly referential to experiencing thoughts associated with the word. a stipulation of meaning onto itself is just a statement of the existence and the label of the meaning, whether the word means anything or not is not really the point, the point is that when the word doesn't mean anything, the difference between analytic and synthetic is meaningless, and when it means something, the knowledge in either type of statement is the same type of knowledge. if that makes any sense to you, the distinction is only a distinction in the kind of sentence used, not in the meaning of the words or the composition, the different kinds of compositions have their own meaning akin to that of the words that is also understood in the same kind of way, all knowledge is, the rest is just sub-types of language game. i hope that makes sense to you, the broader point is that we can't trace out the meaning of any word inside of the formal bounds of a language, the usage of words can't give words meaning, and not sentences either, and so the formal knowledge we hold is a product of the reliability of the application of intuitions about operational definitions, like what plus is, how to use it, how to talk about it, how to add numbers in a way that you will tell yourself you did a good job, and others will agree with you, if you actually went to write down what plus actually means, you would produce a bunch of sentences, then you would struggle to produce new sentences to explain the symbolic usage of words and sentences in your attempt to define plus and so on and so forth until you are 90 years old and suddenly realize you spent your hole life scribbling down an infinite rabbit hole that structurally cannot have a bottom within a language game. this is true for mathematics as well, at some point we have to just say enough is enough and hope our operational understanding of how to apply an idea is reliable enough to apply without inconsistencies, you can't prove consistency or rigorously define the meaning of all your terms inside the system of meaning they represent, so you are simply forced to expand it and expand it but never being able to complete it. this is just a simple consequence of symbolic logic and language being open ended and never fully definable in a rigorous way, you have to build an adding machine, or apply an logarithm manually, of the back of some intuitive notion of it being a correct procedure in relation to the intuition you have about what you wanted in the first place, and hope you didn't skrew up in relation to your expectations, this is because existence and the real world is not structured in the context of symbolic logic, it is its own thing, runs its own analog processes and you are along for the ride, symbolic logic then arises as rule sets that give consistent results within their own operational definitions, like the rules of chess being unambiguous, but they are no more or less ambiguous than being able to tell whether you are inside your apartment or not, being able to make that kind of distinction reliably is all we need to be able to produce reproducible results, like proofs or to be able to follow rules of chess, and know when there is a checkmate, at least somewhat reliably, the mistake some people make is that they think such a procedure relies on formal proof, there is simply no such thing strictly speaking, we can never and will never define our terms properly inside a formal system, because that is beyond the limitations of logic and symbolic language as an activity. sorry if this was a bit rambly, i tried to boil it down, maybe the meaning got a bit lost, it is always hard to tell, when i have thought my own thoughts and have my own perspective and references to draw on that make me favor a certain explanation, that might mean something else when read by another person, or give the wrong impression of the content of the thoughts that i wished to convey, after all i can't check if it made any sense, and that is kind of the point. knowledge is fickle because of this, and there really is only one kind of knowledge in the most fundamental sense as it is experienced outside a language game, and inside my own experience, or yours.

@samueloconner1482

Comment for engagement

@KaneB

8w↑1

I appreciate it!

@drewhallett

Is that a description or a command?

@samueloconner1482

@@drewhallett yes

@Ansatz66

7w↑1

All languages are artificial. Some languages may be considered more artificial then others in that they are constructed by people who are dedicating themselves to that purpose, while other languages are constructed slowly over time by whole cultures, but this is an irrelevant difference. Either way languages are made up by people and they have made-up rules. Quine's effort to find meaning behind the made-up rules of a language seems obviously pointless because they are just made-up rules. There is no reason behind all bachelors being unmarried. It is not analytic because of any particular quality of that proposition; it's just been made-up by people to be that way. There is no magical quality to the word "bachelor" to make it this way, no ontological mystery.

To ask why would be like asking why a king cannot castle after moving in chess. The correct answer is that's just how it is. This does not mean we are justified in declaring that the rule does not exist. Even though the rule is just made-up and has no deeper cause behind it, still we have the rule now and it would be silly to pretend that we do not have it. The rule is that bachelors being unmarried is an analytic fact. You do not have to like it, you do not have to understand why, but you do have to live with it if you want to communicate effectively in English.

@dominiks5068

Such a terrible argument. Quine essentially says "If you adopt my stupid view of necessity, then analyticity cannot be defined non-circularly"... but of course this shouldn't lead us to reject analyticity. Rather, it should lead to us rejecting his stupid view of necessity! Rationalists have told us for more than 200 years that necessity cannot be reduced to analyticity. Quine doesn't give us an argument against analyticity, but rather an argument against reducing necessity to analyticity.

@KaneB

8w↑1

To be fair to Quine, this argument was made in the context of a critique of logical empiricism, and most of the logical empiricists shared Quine’s skepticism of necessity and saw these semantic distinctions as playing an important role in explaining necessity. I think it's a pretty weak argument even with that concession, though. I doubt there is any interesting concept (or even non-interesting concept) that could be given a definition that meets the standards to which Quine holds the concept of analyticity.

@dominiks5068

@@KaneB That's true - maybe if you are a hardcore empiricist, then you should buy Quine's critique. But then again I'd just say that this is to be interpreted as a reductio ad absurdum of hardcore empiricism, because literally nothing is more obvious than that "Bachelor" and "Unmarried man" are synonymous terms.

@atha5469

@martinbennett2228

Crossword clue: female fox, 6 letters.

@emberreed6374

It continues to seem like there could be a bachelor in a green card marriage

@silverharloe

Every time you said "artificial language," I thought of "constructed languages" (conlangs), the most famous of which are Esperanto and Klingon. Not at all helpful to understanding the topic of the video, so then I had to stop and wrangle my brain into thinking about the term "artificial language" the way you mean it.
I have no point, just a potentially amusing aside, which nevertheless counts as engagement for the algorithm.

More Comments

just now