General terms: what use are they?
Regularly on this forum we see topics that seek to define certain concepts with precision and exactitude. Without a precisely-defined vocabulary, we are told, there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion. I disagree, and that's what this topic is about. Oh, and for those of you trapped in binary thinking, I have NOT just written that definitions, or vocabulary, are in any way wrong, or that they should be set aside or otherwise ignored. I argue only that a precisely defined word is sometimes not what we want or need.
The way we humans look at the world - or at least the way I look at it :wink: - we see many things that (to us) are vague and imprecisely-defined. And sometimes we want to discuss these things. So we need vague and imprecisely-defined words to describe these vague and imprecisely-defined things. Sometimes we want to discuss things in a general context, so we use general terms and generalisations (which are, of course, vague and imprecisely-defined). General terms - those whose definitions are (quite deliberately!) vague and imprecisely defined - are useful, and so we have such words, and we use them.
If we talk about intelligence, which is more or less defined by the IQ test, we are actually considering an array of mental talents, which we place under the umbrella heading of "intelligence". The word "intelligence" is therefore vague and imprecisely defined, so that we can use it to describe something that is (you guessed!) vague and imprecisely-defined. Some words are vague and imprecisely defined because that's how we want them to be; we need them that way, and we use them that way.
Recently we saw here a topic that tried to define "wisdom", or maybe that was a sub-topic? Whatever, it was discussed. Attempts were made to give it a precise definition. To me, those attempts seemed to fail. Why? Because wisdom is one of the general terms this topic is about. Like intelligence, wisdom is a multi-faceted thing. It is a general term. What use would it be (in a conversation that sought to use the current general term "wisdom") for it to be given a precise definition? Then you would be unable to refer to all the facets of wisdom at the same time, unless/until you invented a new and general term. For, as well as being general, wisdom includes things we maybe don't have specific terms for, and just includes them with all the other aspects of wisdom. Maybe it includes aspects we hadn't clearly identified before? Vague terms help us think.
Perhaps it would be good to look at a few of the more notorious general terms. First it has to be Quality, the term that gave Pirsig so much trouble. Pirsig asserted that we all know what Quality is, it's only when we try to write down a precise definition that we get into trouble. Fair enough. But perhaps the problem might only be that Quality is a general term, as I have described them, and so it has no precise definition?
And then there's wisdom. Again, we think we all know what it means, but we have difficulty writing it down. Like intelligence, wisdom is a general term, which refers to a number of related - at least we consider them related - mental faculties. In general, wisdom directs us toward understanding, rather than just facts. Intelligence can lead us from "e = mc-squared" to a uranium fission bomb, but wisdom can tell us if we should. Having a term for wisdom means that we can discuss it, even if the definition we have is general and imprecisely defined.
There are other such terms, and I would write about one or two more, but they have flown away from my attention, just as I try to focus on them. Ah, the trials of age, and failing memory! :smile:
The way we humans look at the world - or at least the way I look at it :wink: - we see many things that (to us) are vague and imprecisely-defined. And sometimes we want to discuss these things. So we need vague and imprecisely-defined words to describe these vague and imprecisely-defined things. Sometimes we want to discuss things in a general context, so we use general terms and generalisations (which are, of course, vague and imprecisely-defined). General terms - those whose definitions are (quite deliberately!) vague and imprecisely defined - are useful, and so we have such words, and we use them.
If we talk about intelligence, which is more or less defined by the IQ test, we are actually considering an array of mental talents, which we place under the umbrella heading of "intelligence". The word "intelligence" is therefore vague and imprecisely defined, so that we can use it to describe something that is (you guessed!) vague and imprecisely-defined. Some words are vague and imprecisely defined because that's how we want them to be; we need them that way, and we use them that way.
Recently we saw here a topic that tried to define "wisdom", or maybe that was a sub-topic? Whatever, it was discussed. Attempts were made to give it a precise definition. To me, those attempts seemed to fail. Why? Because wisdom is one of the general terms this topic is about. Like intelligence, wisdom is a multi-faceted thing. It is a general term. What use would it be (in a conversation that sought to use the current general term "wisdom") for it to be given a precise definition? Then you would be unable to refer to all the facets of wisdom at the same time, unless/until you invented a new and general term. For, as well as being general, wisdom includes things we maybe don't have specific terms for, and just includes them with all the other aspects of wisdom. Maybe it includes aspects we hadn't clearly identified before? Vague terms help us think.
Perhaps it would be good to look at a few of the more notorious general terms. First it has to be Quality, the term that gave Pirsig so much trouble. Pirsig asserted that we all know what Quality is, it's only when we try to write down a precise definition that we get into trouble. Fair enough. But perhaps the problem might only be that Quality is a general term, as I have described them, and so it has no precise definition?
And then there's wisdom. Again, we think we all know what it means, but we have difficulty writing it down. Like intelligence, wisdom is a general term, which refers to a number of related - at least we consider them related - mental faculties. In general, wisdom directs us toward understanding, rather than just facts. Intelligence can lead us from "e = mc-squared" to a uranium fission bomb, but wisdom can tell us if we should. Having a term for wisdom means that we can discuss it, even if the definition we have is general and imprecisely defined.
There are other such terms, and I would write about one or two more, but they have flown away from my attention, just as I try to focus on them. Ah, the trials of age, and failing memory! :smile:
Comments (56)
The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.
So I understand whereof you speak.
In a religious discussion, the words "believe" or "belief" drive me nuts. (Although that probably is more a chip shot than a drive.) And when used as part of "believe in"...I shudder.
We'll discuss those things as the thread moves on.
This is a well thought out and well written post. It's also one that I disagree with. For me, the biggest frustration on the forum is long, wandering discussions that never get anywhere because terms are not defined at the beginning. I would say half the threads have this problem.
When I start a discussion where I think there will be misunderstandings about word meanings, I sometimes go on the web and collect 5 or 6 different definitions for the word and present them at the beginning of the post. That can give a good feel for the range of meanings the word may have - the vagueness you talk about. Then we can talk about the vagueness and decide if we can work with it or if we need to tie things down more.
http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ogden-richards-meaning-all.pdf
Pay particular attention to Chapter 9 on the sixteen (yes count them) main philosophical meanings of "meaning". Oh, and it predates all that 'meaning is use' stuff, so better make it seventeen.
It demonstrates the limits of language, which is an important and powerful philosophical concept to grasp. Thus, in the very process of failing in one philosophical endeavour, we get insight into another important philosophical notion.
One way to think about it is the distance between writers and readers.
The writers strive to make the words their own. Readers compare writers, ever uncertain whether they should be writers too. The writer is seen as a thief. Stealing something of value from readers.
If meaning is a matter of establishing the coordinates of position on a map everyone somehow has in their possession, then all the patter of disagreement can be put down as some kind of misunderstanding about a place on the map.
In the midst of all this drama, it is the phenomena that is most up for grabs.
Either some events are occurring or they are not. The most interesting writing reveals what had gone unnoticed by some readers.
The challenge of a site like the philosophy forum is that often someone uses a term like wisdom and means it in a particular way, assuming that other will understand it in the same way they do. But each of us carries around our own idiosyncratic mental dictionaries in which each term we use is mutually defined by its relation to all other terms in our lexicon. In order to make cleaner to others how we are using a word, we have to show how we understand a host of other words that relate to its context. That is, we have to teach others how we are using our own lexicon when we present general philosophical concepts, and many of us haven't given it that much thought.
That's not to say that starting with vague and loosely defined concepts doesn't happen a lot around here. That either will lead to a sharpening and defining of the issue or else people will tend to give up in exasperation and move onto a more fully thought out topic.
:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job?
Yes, I think many (most?) such terms are abstract. But "without utility"? I think not. An umbrella term for a number of related things must prove useful in some circumstances, surely? Granted they are without utility in a binary-thinking context, where precision of vocabulary and concepts are paramount. But the search for certainty is mostly wishful thinking, and remaining exclusively in that context restricts the things we can think about and discuss.
Don't you sometimes want to do what I did all the time as a 17-year-old, batting around general concepts, to see what came out? General discussions, using general terms, have some value, don't they? Note for incurable binary thinkers who may be reading this: no, I do not recommend dropping precision vocabularies in philosophy. I only suggest that adding general discussions to our debating might give us something we don't currently use, maybe something valuable?
Yeah, I guess if its "intended job" is to confuse and obscure...I imagine it does.
Not sure why anyone would use it that way, but...
I'm almost embarrassed to reply to this, in case anyone thinks I am opposing your views. I find that I agree with both of us! :smile: But I cannot help wondering if some of the problems you describe are down to us choosing general/vague things to discuss, then getting annoyed that there are no more precise terms for us to use? Are we just in denial about vague and general words, and their use/utility? :chin:
No, if "atheist" is a general term such as we are describing (I'm not 100% convinced it is, which is why I said "maybe"), then its intended job is to describe something that is not precisely defined, so it describes that something imprecisely. Your reference to (intentional) "confuse and obscure" looks like a simple attempt to discredit the idea and the existence of general terms. But I'm sure I misunderstand...?
I agree with pretty much all of this. But I think perhaps we might sometimes avoid the problems with poorly-chosen topics and poorly-defined terms by recognising at the start that we are discussing vague and general things, which means we will necessarily use vague and general terms to accurately describe them. [Yes, accurately. It would be inaccurate to describe something vague, and give the impression of a precise description.]
The more I think about it, the more I think that the many discussions brought to a halt by misunderstanding over the meaning of the terms used might be our fault. That general terms exist is indisputable (unless you know different?). That general things exist for those terms to describe is indisputable (ditto). Are we so inattentive that we cannot see when we are doing this, right at the start, and maybe spend the first part of the discussion deciding how we will handle the intrinsic imprecision?
Good analogy. I am saying that those discussions that refer to areas of the map, not pin-pointed places, should be recognised, and treated differently, as is surely and obviously appropriate.
So you're not sympathetic to the knowing discussion of imprecisely defined things? Is there a reason why?
A clarification: these words might give the impression that I discount Pirsig's thoughts as a simple mistake. This is not so. I just chose my words poorly. I have read his books several times, and always had a soft spot for his Metaphysics of Quality.
Perhaps I am "misunderstanding."
Why would someone want to have a discussion about anything...and insure that the matter being discussed is obscure?
If a person identifies as an "atheist" and speaks of "atheistic" positions on an issue...why on Earth would you want those positions to be ill-defined?
Fact is, the "atheistic" position on the question, "Are there any gods?"...is not clearly defined. So if what one is attempting to obtain in a discussion of the issue is an individuals position...the reply of "I am an atheist" is of no help. (Neither, in fact, is a reply of "I am an agnostic.")
"I assert that no gods exist anywhere" IS defining...and IS clear. (And is bullshit, but we'll leave that for now.)
"I assert that I do not know if any gods exist" IS defining...and IS clear.
So...what is your point...what are you proposing here?
Well, they wouldn't. But if the thing up for discussion is intrinsically ill-defined? Should we just shy away, and not try to talk about it? What about light? It's a stream of particles, or it's a wave, or it's both...? The term is clearly ill-defined. May we not discuss it anyway? Or gravity: we know that it is, but we don't have a clue what it is. And so on.
Quoting Frank Apisa
No-one wants to be in such a position, but (as I said above), what if the thing being discussed, atheism in this example, is intrinsically ill-defined, as you have already said it is?
Quoting Frank Apisa
First, that we acknowledge the existence of ill-defined or vague terms, and that they exist for good reason (utility), not randomly. Then that we consider how these things might most usefully be discussed, to minimise confusion and misunderstanding. And finally, whether general discussions (which necessarily use general terms) are worthwhile. That'll do for a start. :wink:
Hmm. I've been talking about these terms, terms that deliberately (in some cases) remain imprecise in order to describe something that is itself imprecise. So, if this is the case, a 'good' definition of a general term would be imprecise. A precise definition of an imprecise thing seems unlikely, probably impossible, wouldn't you say?
I have a background in philosophy and its much more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion where there is enough mutual knowledge of historical figures or relevant ideas to start the conversation with a certain coherence. Others with much less background may find just the attempt to raise overarching questions about life to be satisfying. After college, many aren't able to find ways to become involved in such discussions as the mundane obligations of life begin to close in.
You see both types of discussion on this site, those with vaguely defined terms which attract beginning philosophers,and those that begin with and maintain a high degree of focus and relative precision.
But with vague terms such as “meaning” and “truth” defining them just leads to endless disagreement. I’m not sure this is any “better”.
What you describe is part of the process that is involved in defining concepts. There is a fleshing out. Defining is a becoming that is never finished or complete.
There have been many famous ongoing debates in philosophical history, such as those between Gadamer and Habermas, Habermas, Rorty and Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins, etc.
Such debates never resolve themselves, and yet are highly instructive for both the participants and the audience.
And then there are non-debate debates where the parties involved were so far apart in their use of terms that the debate was never really able to get started (Derrida vs Gadamer and Derrida vs Searle ).
Maybe I'm getting the wrong message from this: you'll have to let me know if I have misinterpreted, OK? :up:
The tone of your words reminds me strongly of the scientists of the 1950s, who were convinced that science (mainly physics) had completed its quest, and described and explained the spacetime universe more or less completely.
You seem to be saying that a detailed conversation is for the experienced, while a more general discussion is only for amateurs. And, carrying on from my previous paragraph, you seem to be saying that all experienced philosophers do is to engage in discussions where everything can be, and is, defined in detail. This seems to mean that all we can do is to repeat discussions that have already taken place, or examine the minor details of some historic philosopher's major work.
New understanding starts with general discussion, and becomes clearer and better-defined as time passes. If we must confine ourselves to the detailed discussion you seem to prefer, doesn't this mean no new work, no new understanding(s)? I don't necessarily mean radically-new, revolutionary philosophy, but something a little more everyday.
If I'm wrong (it's happened before! :wink: ) then what is the point of general terms in our language? They clearly have a use, or the population wouldn't use them, and they would fade away. There is little that is more democratic than language, in this sense.
So what are general terms for, if not general discussion?
But is this movement ever complete? At which point does the general stop being general?
Let me give an example. If i'm involved in a discussion with someone who, like me, is thoroughly versed in , say, Sartre, the our disagreement over Sartre will require each of us to reexamine our own readings of him and his definitions. It can be exasperating and frustrating, but also potentially very instructive. Ive had many such discussions, and I end up learning something new in my own reading of philosophers. That's regardless of whether I come to an agreement in the discussion. On the other hand, I've been involved in debates where I have to spend so much time in superficial background clarification that it never becomes challenging for me.
There have been many famous ongoing debates in philosophical history, such as those between Gadamer and Habermas, Habermas, Rorty and Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins, etc.
Such debates never resolve themselves, and yet are highly instructive for both the participants and the audience.
And then there are non-debate debates where the parties involved were so far apart in their use of terms that the debate was never really able to get started (Derrida vs Gadamer and Derrida vs Searle).
I thought atheist had an intentionally specific vague meaning...Isn't the main definition "one who does not believe in god or gods"? That captures a wide range of beliefs, (everything from agnostic to "I believe there is no god") but its meaning seems perfectly clear. Wouldn't "Christian" have the exact same problem? What about "Asian"? It just means "a person of Asian descent" or "relating to Asia". Notice there is then a wide range of possible items that fit that definition...but it doesn't make the definition meaningless.
I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. When I hear "Christian" I think of the whole range of Christianity, not just Catholics or Baptists.
Well...if "atheist" means "one without a belief in any god"...that WOULD mean agnostics are atheists. But most agnostics I've known DO NOT want to be considered atheists.
Anyway, a few comments on that...which I will offer in separate posts.
COMMENT #1:
The notion that "atheist" means "without a belief in any god" was manufactured fairly recently...and derives from an erroneous claim about the etymology of the word. Atheists who apparently wanted to inflate their numbers by including agnostics, claimed the word atheism derived from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a GOD exists) = (a person without a belief that a GOD exists.)
But...it doesn't. In fact, the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE the word "theism." It cannot have derived that way.
"Atheism" came to us from the Greek, through the French..."a" (without) + "theos" ( a god) and equals (without a god) NOT (without a belief in a god.)
Anyway...it would be just about impossible to find an English dictionary prior to, let's say, 1950 that would use "without a 'belief' in a god" as part of its definition. Just about every pre-1950 dictionary (and many today) use the definition derived from its etymology...namely, "a person who believes or asserts that no gods exist."
Using that definition...agnostics would NOT be atheists.
People who uses "atheist" as part of a personal descriptor either assert a 'belief' that no gods exist...OR that it is much more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.
A 'belief' that no gods exist OR that it is more likely no gods exist...(both of which are nothing but blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence)...seems absolutely essential to use of that word as part of a self-descriptor.
Agnostics do not do that.
Some people do identify as agnostic-atheists or atheist-agnostics...and do make those blind guesses. But they use the "atheist" qualifier BECAUSE of those guesses.
I attempt not to use a descriptor unless needed for commentary like this, but here is how I describe my agnosticism:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
If the word is not ambiguous...why are there so many arguments about strong-atheism or weak-atheism...and why does that distinction come up so often in Internet discussions...
...and damn near never in conversations with atheists in a non-cyber environment.
The only time the distinction between strong and weak seems to be made...is during these kinds of discussions. Meet someone in the real world who is an atheist...and that person will use "atheist."
Wonder what they mean.
Are they asserting that no gods exist?
Are they asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than at least one does?
Whichever...they are asserting a blind guess...which their counterparts "theists" call 'beliefs.'
and yet ask them to describe any god that they believe in...
Quoting Frank Apisa
Fair enough (I would probably have to learn Greek to debate the point), but using that definition, most atheists I know would NOT be atheists.
How should we classify the following belief?
There is no god that I believe in, but I don't know for sure.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The data seems hard to find, but what are the odds that a self identified atheist was involved in dictionary creation prior to very recently? I would guess it is close to 0%, as probably less than 1% of earth's population would have called themselves atheist? Might explain the poor definition?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I don't like the hard no (I don't mind the hard no in relation to every god that has been defined as there is something to refute, but we don't know what we don't know), but I am fine with the second one. That still makes the person an agnostic atheist (don't know for sure).
Quoting Frank Apisa
How is, "I have never seen evidence of that" a blind guess? The theist is approaching the question from such a different place, that they seem incapable of understanding that plenty of us are just fine not knowing and not even feeling the need to guess. Why would I guess when I have nothing to base the guess on? Hence why many atheists try to explain their "belief" as "a lack of belief".
Quoting Frank Apisa
So if someone asks "do you believe in a god?" does your head just explode because you can't even answer that question? That question is entirely binary. There is no 3rd option. Answering "I don't know" is identical to answering "no, but I am not sure". Surely you would know if there was a god you do believe in?
Quoting Frank Apisa
For the same reason that Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries. They are all "Christian", why the disagreement?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I live in America, so I don't really tell people I am atheist until I know them. I try to avoid making other people uncomfortable and religious folk are uncomfortable with atheists. They DO like agnostics much better (in fact, I started calling myself atheist because religious people are far too inclusive of agnostics - they assume they are searching for god and just haven't found him yet - I needed to separate myself from that position, even if just in my own head).
Quoting Frank Apisa
But you don't wonder what they mean every time someone tells you they are "Christian"?
Do they believe in hell?
Is the sabbath Saturday or Sunday?
Do gay people go to heaven?
Should adulterers be stoned?
I could do about a hundred of these if we need more.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Despite everything I have said, I too have seen many atheists being "assertive". I typically argue with them too :grin:
.
The difference between atheists and agnostics isn't in a lack of belief in God, both can have that. The difference is that the atheist interprets the lack of belief as meaning there's no reason to believe in any real possibility and the agnostic interprets the lack of belief as a result of being unable to determine either way.
The problem is that people don't always realise that they disagree with each other because they don't explore deeply enough their positions. When they do that, they find that the fundamental disagreement lies not where they thought it was but prior that, in their words. So someone wants to talk about "how important is intelligence in a relationship?" for example but in order to talk about that, you need to break down what intelligence is. They could refrain from using the word and instead break down the various components of intelligence but that wouldn't necessarily help, you're still going to debate interpretations.
The real problem in my view is that when someone uses a word, they're not aware that word is being subjectively defined by them using arguments they are or are not aware of. When you list the components of intelligence, you're making an argument for what intelligence is and what constitutes it. When others have a different understanding/interpretation, each wrongly believes that the other person has got it wrong and is being unreasonable. Being unable to determine when someone has actually stepped outside the bounds of the general definition of a word and when they're challenging your argument.
You can clearly see that with @Frank Apisa in his example, the problem here isn't that agnosticism or atheism are vague, there's a fundamental disagreement here about the meaning of the terms. Agnosticism is actually pretty clearly defined but that doesn't mean we have the same understanding of what an agnostic is. It's the same for most words and realistically if you're going to try to talk about something controversial then you should prepare yourself to be mostly debating interpretations.
Thank you for your lengthy response, ZhouBoTong. (Is there a shorter name I can use and still show respect?)
Rather than respond to the entire post...I will take this in stages, because I think the issue is important. Perhaps we can discover where we agree and where we are in substantial disagreement.
Atheist is a descriptor...almost always self-assigned. Here, people are attempting to assign it to me as a result of (supposed) definition...and I am opposing that effort. (We'll get to the definition of both "atheism" and "believe" later.)
In my experience, one of the key (essential) elements of a person using "atheist" in any form (atheist, strong or explicit atheist, weak or implicit atheist, agnostic atheist)...is because the individual feels either certainty that no gods exist; has a "belief" (something less than certainty) that no gods exist; or has an opinion that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists."
Does this differ from your experience?
Have you ever encountered any person who identify themselves using the word "atheist" who is totally uncertain of the existence of gods,,,and does not see the likelihood of "no gods" as being greater than the likelihood of "at least one?"
Sure, as far as I am concerned, you taking the time to respond is more than enough respect for me :smile: Zhou is fine, BoTong also works. ZBT is another common option, and since there are hardly any names starting with z, I am fine with Z too. As long as I know you are talking to me, it works.
Quoting Frank Apisa
As soon as you say "totally uncertain" I do not think there are very many atheists that fit that. But what does "totally uncertain" mean? Is that realistic? Everyone can conceive of a god based on some basic definitions, therefor, as soon as someone is asked to think about it, they will have a minimal opinion at least. If you don't know what a god is, then you don't believe in one, so by definition that makes a person atheist (sorry when I use "you" I often mean "a person").
I apologize, I did not have enough time for this. This is a quick response, but I will try to give it a bit more thought.
i agree. I think people who think because they have the corner on a definition very often miss the notion that their could be one or more key pieces of data or information that could drastically change what the objective truth is assuming there is such a thing as objective truth.
Generality becomes specific when it is applied to the concrete. Generality gives movement to concepts/abstractions. In detaching from the material to the ideal, concepts are born. Generality is this detachment, or perhaps it is the realm where concepts flow (yeah there's some poetic licence here).
We could not even think metaphysical without the ability to generalise.
Exactly. :up: There are some contexts, at least, where "atheist" is used in a deliberately general sense. And it is used usefully in this sense. I am not arguing that we should replace specific terms with general ones, or specific discussions with general ones, but I am arguing that general terms and discussion have and deserve their place in our cogitations. Sometimes, trying to be too specific detracts from what we're trying to convey.
General and specific; each can be worthwhile, yes?
There is surely disagreement about the meaning of these terms, but is it "fundamental"? I don't really think so. All of the various meanings show shades of meaning, but not fundamentally different definitions. The general meaning really does cover all of the more specific ones, for any and all general purposes. And if the discussion moves to a more specific context, then the terms need greater clarity. I struggle to see anything here that anyone might disagree with....
Nice post. :up:
...either asserts that no gods exist...
...or expresses a "belief" that no gods exist...
...or expresses an opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one does.
The reason that has significance is because many people insist that individuals such as myself...are atheists by virtue solely of "a lack of 'belief' in any gods."
I am saying that "atheist" has more to it.
I most assuredly do not assert there are no gods; I most assuredly never express a "belief" that no gods exist; and I most assuredly am not of the opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than the reverse.
Definitely. This topic is interesting too, in that many people (all of us?) seem to have problems with some words being used generally, but are perfectly fine using other words generally. I think when I have a problem with words being used generally it is more because society has started using the word(s) flippantly to the point that they can have nearly opposite potential meanings ("conservative" and "liberal" are 2 words where I need more information to even begin to guess what they mean in any given context, and of course "literally" now generally means "figuratively"). If everyone gave dictionaries a bit more authority, it would solve a lot of problems - but even dictionaries change over time so it wouldn't solve everything.
While I think we are partially on topic, I think most of our discussion will be better served in that newer agnosticism thread (title is something like "why people don't say I don't know").
I will try to read all of that one and get caught up before getting involved so you don't have to repeat yourself (too much, hehe).
Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. Language really is a democratic institution, and its usage is dictated solely by its users. So, a few years ago, "bad" came to mean good, in everyday parlance. It doesn't really matter whether you or I like it; it just is.
Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. The users of our language currently hold that authority, as they always have, and probably always will. I can't see language users losing their authority over their own language, can you? And, even if it was possible, would you really want it to happen? Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? With one or a few senior dictionary executives, or something similar. What has been gained? :wink:
At best, a dictionary can give us the etymology of the word...and an idea of how it is used currently.
That helps...but is not authoritative.
Most people writing in the forums give an explanation of how they are using a word when they use it in an unconventional way.
Works for me.
Unquestionably true, but I seem to enjoy whining about it anyway :grin:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I realize that authority was a problematic word in that case. What I meant by "more authority" was simply a type of tie breaker that allows the conversation to accept a definition and move on. However, you are right to point out that today's dictionary definitions may change with usage, so that is hardly a type of authority.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Well notice that something like wikipedia would allow the language users themselves to be the ones to create and constantly update and modify the "dictionary". Consensus and evidence then determine what stays and what changes.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Well, not much. Just the ability to feel superior knowing the "right" definition (and maybe a tiny bit of time savings). And as I am trying to rid myself of the need to feel superior (as much as my logical brain understands the emptiness of superiority, my emotional brain just loves it), it really is not much.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes I am struggling with word choice (I feel like there must be a joke related to this statement considering the topic of this thread), I tried to soften my language a bit above. The wikipedia version of a dictionary does seem to answer a lot of the problems (it would give a type of "authority" for a person to reference, while leaving the authority in the hands of the language users themselves). But I am willing to admit, that doing that does not suddenly solve all of the problems mentioned in this thread, so not too important.
Yes, although Wikipedia is not quite the democratic organisation it used to be. Too many hurdles to get over to become an editor. Still, as you say, it's the best way to implement a useful and worthwhile dictionary. :up:
Here is a site I have used for years. Put a word into it...and you will get the word as defined in 10 - 30 different dictionaries.
https://www.onelook.com/
I also use this one for etymology:
https://www.etymonline.com
Well that should be useful on this website :grin: Or just a starting off point for more debate, haha. In any case, a useful resource, thank you.
“The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the
ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative
generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational
interpretation”