Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui  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. |
Very interesting! I'll have to spend some more time with that before coming to any conclusions, but it looks like you did an amazing job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui The problem was that I didn't agree. |
Ah, now that is another matter entirely! I had no idea. If I offer you a definition with which you disagree, wouldn't it make more sense to come out and directly say so, and then state your argument (perhaps with a definition of your own), instead of having me attempt to define all the words in a definition you disagree with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui 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? |
First, I must disagree with the first part of the above quote. I use dictionaries to augment my arguments all the time. I barely have time to indulge in these discussions in the first place, and so, if I want to play (and I want to play!) I must use whatever time savers I can find to help.
Further, when I offer Webster's definition of anything, I am offering it with the implication that I agree with it within the present discussion. Therefore, it may as well be mine. And, there's not a thing in the world that says you have to accept that definition, regardless of where it comes from. (I will say that I'll be a
whole lot less cranky if you don't like Webster's definition of something as opposed to a definition I spent an hour trying to come up with myself! LOL) Again, if I offer a definition that you disagree with, I think it will be a lot more productive for you to respond with a definition
you agree with and give me the opportunity to agree or disagree. Because, after all, most of our discussions are not about the actual definitions. Well, except this one, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui The question of the thread wasn't answerable with a simple look-up. That's why it was worth talking about at all. |
Certainly not. But I'll argue that the definitions of words used to answer the question are answerable with a look-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui 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. |
Right, I get it. But my question had to do with where this
ends. If I define all the words in a six word definition, there are bound to be several words within those new (let's say 36 word total) definitions that you're not sure you understand. This will get ridiculous
very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui Steve Carrell: "What part of 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet' don't you understand?" |
Okay. You know what, Michael? Causing ice water to spew from a debater's nose during discussion is
NOT good form!
(OMG that was a funny sketch!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui 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. |
I don't think we have a disagreement here. Obviously, if a word can be easily taken as more than one thing, even within the context of the given statement, it should be defined.
Jeesh! Well, I spent my morning allotment on this! I need to go get some stuff done!
Have a great day!
