Definitions
Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. So I think it's worth making the following points:
1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."
2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."
3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.
For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.
I wish this didn't have to be explicitly stated.
1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."
2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."
3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.
For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.
I wish this didn't have to be explicitly stated.
Comments (34)
Sometimes they even get that wrong!
If only there were a fact of the matter, to be right and wrong about... A population of word-use events, from which to sample appropriately.
And if it weren't for pesky kids like Humpty Dumpty, Quine (Gavagai), and Chomsky (probability of an utterance)...
This is particularly relevant in psychology and philosophy of mind but also in any field with where there is not an external object to hang a definition onto including social theory and politics.
Sometime, one simply CANNOT meaningfully or accurately "define" a thing.
Best example I can think of is the word "atheist." It is a descriptor...but what it means is all over the place.
And the dictionaries are of little help, because their "definitions" vary significantly...and, at times, are misleading.
This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I'll leave it here.
The word "God" is another...especially when capitalized.
Quoting tim wood
Wiki: "An Achilles' heel or Achilles heel is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall. While the mythological origin refers to a physical vulnerability, idiomatic references to other attributes or qualities that can lead to downfall are common."
The problem I see with technical definitions of words insofar as they're radically different from the conventional lexical definitions of those words is that then they're no longer meaningful to the common man and to the degree to that they're not, they lose their relevance to life and living. If you do survey of topics with techinical definitions that differ greatly from their common lexical definitions I feel they'll be about highly abstract matters - far removed from what people are concerned about in their day to day lives.
It seems pretty clear to me. What are you trying to do here, play a variation of the game that causes some people (perhaps Tim) to suggest that "definitions" are the Achilles heel of philosophy?
"Democrat" is a descriptor..."registered member of the Democratic Party" is a definition of that descriptor.
"Methodist" is a descriptor..."member of a Protestant denomination of Christianity that is attributed to the teaching of John Wesley and others" is a definition of that descriptor.
"Valedictorian" is a descriptor...usually "the student in a class who achieved the highest academic excellence" is a definition of that descriptor.
Time for an appropriate joke:
[i]The wife of noted lexicographer Noah Webster unexpectedly walks into the family parlor and discovers Noah passionately kissing the downstairs maid.
"I am surprised," she declares.
"No, my dear," responds Webster, "you are astonished. It is I who am surprised."[/i]
Okay, break over. Back to work.
:rofl: Don't worry, , we got yours too. (we did ??!)
Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else. I'd choose someone where you actually are correct...and the other person wrong, though!
:wink:
:rofl: I don't want ever to be surprised or astonished. Mildly amused maybe.
What'll we do then, how will we live? :D
Stop projecting ... :lol:
No problemo. I'm not projecting at all. :wink:
The old computer science observation: "Garbage in = garbage out"
But I realize I am guilty of judging philosophical arguments from the perspective of a (once) active, non-set theorist, mathematician. Philosophy is a much fuzzier discipline and what I perceive as a "weakness" is merely part of the game. For instance, some time back there was a discussion involving the notion of "metaphysical actuality", and I kept trying to get the person using the expression to define it. He never could, or lost interest. However, I did come across one reference in a letter to Leibniz, and from that an example was cited that made some sort of sense, at least to me. :smile:
Yup.
In any case, there are times where a "definition" is important to a reasonable discdussion. But it is my experience that in way too many Internet philosophical discussions, the request to "define X" is more a challenge intended to divert. Someone is attempting to move away from an argument that has been successful made.
Here in a philosophy forum, we should be reasonable and ethical enough to observe an absolute essential to all reasonable debate; namely, that when an argument has been adequately made and a valid point established, that point should be conceded.
All too often ego takes control...and people will do everything possible NOT to concede a valid argument.
Sure. So what? Take, as I mentioned, the example of "energy." I know what people mean when they talk about "having no energy today," or something to that effect. Or when Trump labeled Geb Bush "Low energy Geb" or something like that. In neither case are we using "energy" the way it's used in physics. But is that a problem? All it means is that common sense notions and everyday usage doesn't work in that particular domain of study.
In medicine, it's particularly important to use the right terms -- specificity and detail matter. In mathematics, it's absolutely essential, although this is the most extreme case perhaps.
My point in raising this issue is simply not appealing to common usage when discussing science or philosophy, or simply engaging in a fruitless discussion on "let's define x," without any knowledge of the history of the field in question, its problems, its terms, its theoretical basis, etc. I see a lot of that here.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes. That's a good point, and I've noticed it as well. I'm sure I've been guilty of it, in fact. It's especially "useful" to save face when someone else has far more knowledge than you do about a matter, and thus can present far more evidence and reasons for his or her argument. That's what many would accuse Socrates of doing, in fact, and one of the reasons Nietzsche (to name one) comes down pretty hard on him.
We don't simply want to be undermining everything and postponing action -- political or otherwise -- UNTIL we "finally," at long last, discover some ultimate definition or bedrock axiomatic truths. In that case, even geometry wouldn't be possible.
My point was a simple one about discussions on a philosophy forum. In that case, invoking everyday words and their meanings in to the discussion is a mistake, and shows either ignorance or a certain laziness which one would never bring to a physics or biology department.
:up:
-Austin.
I have a friend who refuses to eat kale because of the bullshit surrounding the supposed superfood. I have explained to him that just as the bullshit is not a reason to eat kale, it is not a reason not to eat kale. It's irrelevant to the decision to eat kale.
Pretty much the same goes for definitions.
What does "dictionary" mean?
Well, if bullshit surrounded the kale, I wouldn't want to eat it, for sure, even if you cleaned it. The smell... :vomit:
Now, if you don't mean literal bullshit, but something else, well, we'd need you to define your use of "bullshit" to really know whether or not it would be a reason or not to eat kale.
Indeed, if a discourse involves the special/technical meaning of a word and if you fail to use that word correctly then, it'll be a pointless affair - interlocutors would be talking past each other and what's worse is they'll be under the mistaken belief that they're actually talking about the same thing. Is Wittgenstein relevant here?
I'm embarrassed to say it, but I've never read Wittgenstein carefully enough to say anything useful about him.
Definitions can be beneficial when used to join up separate discourses of any kind, large or small: large, e.g. languages in use, conceptual schemes, paradigms, ideologies, disciplines; and small, e.g. beliefs, dialogues, theories etc.
(Ouch, I might have glossed a bit hard there).
Where they meet most resistance is probably where they are perceived as the possible Trojan horse of an untrustworthy power?
Just want to share an interesting (in my opinion) take on this definition thingy.
In another forum I just used the expression "...goddam rain"...and was instantly called to task for "cursing."
Guy ALMOST got it right, because using "god" and "damn" in the same sentence often IS cursing...but not in this case.
Cursing, swearing, profanity, blasphemy, vulgarities...all have specific meaning...although they are reasonably used interchangeably in casual conversation.
Cursing is asking for someone to be "damned"...usually, although not exclusively by a god. "God damn you!" is cursing. "Trump is a fucking moron" is NOT.
Swearing...is oath taking...and when used in its pejorative sense, usually means asking a god to witness an oath unnecessarily. "I swear to god that Trump is the most ignorant, fucking moron ever to be president of America" IS swearing. Unnecessary calling on a god to witness a statement is swearing (in the pejorative sense) whether it is true or not.
Profanity (or blasphemy) involves making worldly what some consider sacred. "Jesus H. Christ" used in exasperation...is profanity. "Trump is a fucking moron" is NOT.
Saying, "Trump is a fucking moron" IS a vulgarity...without regard to whether it is true or true.
Felt that this fit into this discussion nicely.
Yeah, different fields use specialized, technical language. The difference is these terms are often heuristics (in other words, they're more just useful concepts for helping us understand other concepts as opposed to a statement about the nature of ultimate reality) or they're just little unique quirks within the field (in the military we use all sorts of weird language but again, no one takes it to be a reflection of ultimate reality.)
The difference in a nutshell is that philosophy often claims to be a reflection of ultimate reality - and when you use words like "mind" you're already seemingly presupposing non-physicalism (you could have just used "brain" which everyone understands) and you're invoking a concept that I don't even know how to approach that is your way of making a claim about ultimate reality - it's a little tyrannical, if you think about it. Definitions in themselves can be a little tyrannical it often comes down the nature of these definitions - i.e. whether one claims they are a facet of ultimate reality or not.