It is clear that many words are defined by how they are used. That context defines the word. The setting of the environment together constitutes the context, and a word is a meaningless string which serves the purpose of denoting or expressing the context.
That 'apple' means (equivalent to denotes) a red colored fruit with such and such properties - and the properties are exhaustive to the extent that they can uniquely differentiate apple from similar fruits say peach. Here means is defined by the usage (in this case denotation).
That 'happiness' means an emotion of joy, not-sad, etc. Here means is equivalent to the expression of an emotion.
What these cases illustrate, and very clearly to me, is the origin and usage of the word 'meaning' - and it is shown by how the word is used.
Now consider the statement: Meaning of Life. Many people have written so much about it, while it is very clear to me that it is a blatant abuse of language. Meaning of life expresses nothing in objective reality. It is a misuse of the word meaning. Perhaps a close and correct reformulation of the statement would be: Purpose of Life.
This illustrates how important it is to use words in their original context, otherwise we fool our brain into thinking things which are senseless, in the sense that the rules of language used to expresses those senseless statements have been violated. So while they appear very philosophical, they are pure rubbish.
The issue which concerns me is the following: because the usage of a word is limited to the context, and if I create a unique string for every possible context in the world, then I have a list of all possible contexts possible in the world, and can accurately describe everything possible clearly. Our natural language is a weaker case of this case, and it is so because we cannot do the former exercise. But it is also clear that if I am able to do this monumental exercise, then I will be able to express everything, and the power of this language will not be weaker than natural language, for it will be able to express everything possible.
Now if I have words for all possible contexts, then it follows from my previous arguments that in order to describe or discuss, we cannot use words belonging to different contexts in our discussion. So if the stronger language I have created cannot express anything other than all possible contexts in the world, how can the weaker language (natural language) express anything higher? It therefore appears to me that the entire exercise of discussing philosophy is an illogical task which only makes people believe they are discussing something very important, when in fact they are just arguing about senseless things. One direct consequence is that texts talking about existence, abstract entities become void, for they are an abuse of language.