[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Shamou

I would like to add that many disagreement are due to different "Personal Rules."

I agree. And while it can be quibbled, I'd point out that what a definition is a kind of boundary. It uses a word to create a space, and inside that space is what the word means and outside of that space is what the word doesn't.

Originally Posted by InJoy

If it is impossible to accurately define a word, then I suggest that a dictionary is as fine a place to look as anywhere for pre-written definitions with which we can all agree.

But importantly, it also means that any other source is an equally fine place to look. Including oneself. For example, I have a definition of love that very few people would immediately agree with, but I hope that, given some further explanation, most people would.

Originally Posted by InJoy

All we need to do is agree or disagree because the source of an arbitrary definition is irrelevant. If I found the definition on the side of a cereal box, yet we could agree upon it for the purposes of our discussion, then bingo. It works. See?

IMO, dictionaries are time-savers. They prevent me from having to reinvent the wheel.

The problem was that I didn't agree.

Dictionaries are time-savers, to be sure. And that's why it's worthwhile to use them at all; certainly, I use them, too. But when the question of definition arises at all, especially on the Internet, it means that the dictionary is something that's deliberately not being used, because the popular definition is simply not good enough, especially when it's being put together by people who aren't participating in the discussion. Lexicographers are not philosophers or theologians: it must be asked, then, why should I accept their definition of free will?

The question of the thread wasn't answerable with a simple look-up. That's why it was worth talking about at all.

Originally Posted by InJoy

I would also question why you think dictionaries are so worthless, yet you seem to find great value in Wikipedia.

I find great value in many human works. The difference with Wikipedia is that it's open to question. The basis by which a topic is described is checked by other people, and more importantly, they cite their sources, which dictionaries rarely and cannot really do. And if I disagree with a Wikipedia article, I won't cite it. Lexicographers can explain their process in the front matter, but I have yet to see one on a by-word basis.

Take a look at Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by InJoy

And if you disagree, please tell me where you think the definitions of definitions should end.

You define words to the point when all participants believe they know what the others are talking about. If a participant isn't sure what you mean by word X, then word X needs to be defined. Likewise, if two people disagree on what word Y means, then they either have to discard the usage of that word, or they have to define it in an agreeable form.

See discussions (to use a mild term) on God.

Steve Carrell: "What part of 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet' don't you understand?"

Originally Posted by InJoy

It would be unreasonable (and unnecessary) for you to ask me to define any of the words in that sentence because their context makes it clear what I am talking about. Any further information, such as my definition of "candle", is going to be minutia, and not only will that be useless to our discussion, it will also likely be distracting and confusing as well.

I agree. It would be pointless. But think of it differently.

Let's say we were a clandestine organization. What is "candle" did not actually refer to a physical candle, but rather a symbolic one? Maybe it's a metaphor for a piece of propaganda. Perhaps the "lighting" refers to how widespread it is, and thus your love for it actually signifies that you admire how far it's been distributed. Thus, "I love the lighting offered by a candle's flame," might actually mean, "I admire how widely you've distributed 'Common Sense' among the patriots."

On the other hand, if I said, "I use a flame to cook the beef," the person I was speaking to might look at it and say, "That's not a flame, that's a bonfire!", even though we both knew that it wasn't a person.

That's not a philosophical debate, though.