[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Ah, now that is another matter entirely! I had no idea.

Well, didn't the fact that I continued to ask suggest that? Either I didn't understand (which I assumed), or I didn't agree.

Originally Posted by InJoy

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?

Generally speaking, I invite others to speak before I put forward my own opinions. I'm not as obsessive about courtesy as some people (a story my mother likes to tell me about my grandfather, his friends, and paying the bill comes to mind), but I certainly prefer to listen than to speak.

More to the point, I prefer to speak in someone else's language. It forces me to think about how they think, and to try to understand that person and to re-examine my own ideas in their light before I showcase them. I'm usually unsuccessful, but practice makes better.

You could have asked me to do it. Or asked why I was asking.

Originally Posted by InJoy

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.

I can't say I agree that these are mere indulgences.

Originally Posted by InJoy

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 I criticized both the definitions you offered, both WordNet Princeton's and the unsourced one you offered by raising questions that hadn't been asked or answered by the definition offered. Now, clearly I had my own opinions behind those questions, as I showed when infinitethoughts accused me of nitpicking.

Originally Posted by InJoy

And, there's not a thing in the world that says you have to accept that definition, regardless of where it comes from.

No, but we have to agree on it before we can reasonably discuss any implications of it.

Originally Posted by InJoy

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

But that's the point. Part of what it means to come up with your own definition is that it's yours. You feel an attachment to it, because you've invested time and effort into creating it, and thus it actually means something to you.

The definition of love that I pointed to took me seven years. I would certainly be cranky if someone thought poorly of it without actually explaining why. (I wouldn't if they gave me constructive criticism, which I've received some of and included.)

Originally Posted by InJoy

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.

I'm having a problem with your trivialization of philosophy. You're asking for efficiency in a field that's anything but. It's inherently the antithesis of efficiency and productivity: the very point is to sit around and think, doing nothing, but what is ultimately produced has generations of impact, if it stands the test of time. Philosophy is something all people have; it's colloquially called a "philosophy of life", but everyone has one, even if it's not formally spelled out. Actively reconsidering one's beliefs and assumptions is the method by which a person formalizes their philosophy of life.

It's not a mere indulgence. It's an acknowledgement and exercise of one's free will fully expressed, expanding one's choices beyond the mere influence of the culture and society in which they were raised. It's what personal development is.

Just look at the debate over lightworkers and darkworkers, back when Steve showcased the terms. The problem was ultimately definition. Were they really talking about lightworkers and darkworkers? No, not really. But the lack of definition meant that they thought they were talking to people about the same topic when they were actually discussing completely different topics. And I have to say: that's not productive.

There's a story about two men who had a sawing contest, to go through several pieces of wood faster than the other. One man worked through the day, sawing and sawing. The other stopped at noon and sharpened his tool, losing time. But we're not that surprised to discover he won anyways. I'm sure you know the moral as well as I do.

Originally Posted by InJoy

Certainly not. But I'll argue that the definitions of words used to answer the question are answerable with a look-up.

How is it that the question "What is free will?" have words that are definable with a look-up. That was the title of the thread.

Originally Posted by InJoy

But my question had to do with where this ends.

When everyone believes they understand.

Originally Posted by InJoy

Okay. You know what, Michael? Causing ice water to spew from a debater's nose during discussion is NOT good form!

Yes it is. Some of the best points I've seen made have been in comic strips. Ex absurdum veritas?

Originally Posted by InJoy

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.

Right. That's the principle example of the need for definition agreement.

But less clear are terms like "free will" or "God" or "duty". In these cases, the confusion isn't an ambiguity of definition, which can be answered by context, but rather the very lack of a definition. Example:

Can God be defined? Some theological doctrine states that God is infinite, unknowable, inconceivable, boundless, etc. Thus, God Himself (or Itself, if you prefer) is paradoxically the definition of undefinability. And yet, the notion of "sin", "Satan", and "evil", as defined as not-God, immediately present God as something definable, because there are things that God is not, and thus a boundary thus exists. And the boundary itself is the definition.

Just as you cannot talk about flames in general without clearing up the ambiguity between person and fire, so you also can't talk about flames without first establishing what they are. As demonstrated in the distinction between, say, a blowtorch and a bonfire, we may consider one to be a flame and the other not. And only from an agreement of definition can we say things like, "Flames are useful for welding metal." A bonfire certainly is not.

So, it's not just that you have to establish what something is in reference to all the other things it could be; you have to establish what something is, period.