What's the point in discussing a word's definition?

[Michael Chui]

A lot of what I'm going to say has already been said. By me, but also by some others. The most recent I've heard, and my current favorite, is Erin McKean's talk at Google, "Verbatim". It's a little under an hour long, but she goes through much of what I have to say more humorously (and in slightly more detail).

"Verbatim" - Erin McKean - Google Video

Here's my thesis: Definitions are arbitrary. Entirely arbitrary. Words mean anything and everything you want them to. If you agree with this, then I'm only providing facts; if you disagree, read on. My objective is to explain why I harp on definitions so often.

I begin with linguistics: an excerpt from Chaucer's Cantebury Tales:

But, Lord Crist! whan that it remembreth me
Upon my yowthe, and on my jolitee,
It tikleth me aboute myn herte rote.
Unto this day it dooth myn herte bote
That I have had my world as in my tyme.

Isn't it remarkably similar to English? What you see here is an ancestor of American English, a language about 500 years old. Older ancestors are Germanic and Latin. On the other hand, we have Chinese.


Source: The Bloom is not a Bloom

Or sign language: Sutton Signwriting

So concludes my first argument: words are malleable. They are infinitely malleable. And if something is so malleable, how can it have a fixed definition? Thus, any definition has, at best, a lifespan longer than yours. At worst, it will mean something else the next time you hear it. Does "flame" mean your latest girlfriend or what you use to boil water? I'll come back to this.

Next, let's turn to the art of lexicography. In contrast to the Wikipedia article, I will put forward two types of dictionaries: prescriptivist and descriptivist. These are linguistic techniques, of course, but that's beside the point.

The iconic prescriptivist lexicographer, for me, is Noah Webster. His Wikipedia article says, "Webster dedicated his Speller and Dictionary to providing an intellectual foundation for American nationalism." Have you ever wondered why the British spell words funny? "Colour" instead of "color", for instance? Webster was responsible.

Most dictionaries, on the other hand, are descriptivist. How so? How is a dictionary compiled? The process is actually rather straight-forward, if time-consuming and tedious for all but the most dedicated. A lexicographer reads. A lot. They find thousands of examples of a word in usage--in living text, so to speak--and abstract their understanding of each word into a description, or definition, of that word.

Does that honestly sound like an authority to you? A dictionary definition is, in other words, some group's opinion of how most people use it most of the time. You can't be sure when, exactly, that was; if a dictionary has 10,000 words, when do you think each was last researched? You know what nice means, right? Check out its entry in the OED. If I recall correctly, it's three pages long.

This is my second argument: dictionaries are unreliable, because they are written by people. While they may be divided into 66 books and as many authors, they are not divinely inspired, as far as any religious group has claimed. (Though when I see the rise of the Cult of the Lexicographer, I think I will just run.) And if you happen to be a Judeo-Christian: thou shalt have no idols, no other gods before me. Worship not thy Dictionary, though thou shalt continue to eat thy daily Word. A dictionary is wrong, unless you already agree with it. It is not an authority. As McKean says (paraphrased), "Look up your favorite word. See if you agree with the definition."

For my next act, I'm going to anticipate an objection. For this, we go back to linguistics. What is the purpose of language? What is language?

Language is a (1) vocabulary and (2) grammar for the purpose of (3) communication. Each of these three things are necessary for a system to be a language. A programming language is such because it communicates instructions from a human programmer to a computer-run interpreter, compiler, or assembler. Slang, and vulgarities, are part of language because it communicates something, and has restricted uses. People who violate those restrictions (grammatical) are usually shrugged off by the culture as posers.

What role does a definition play in this? They connect words (parts of a vocabulary) to actual meaning. The word "shred" means one thing to an XML programmer (extracting the elements from a document) and another thing to an office worker (destroying a physical document). From one XML programmer to another, they understand the word "shred". But if an XML programmer emailed an XML file to an office worker and said, "Shred this, please," the office worker would be deeply confused.

Thus, in order for communication to occur successfully, the words used by both participants (both sender and receiver) must refer to reasonably similar meanings. That is to say, their definitions have to be similar. That is what a dictionary is: it's a way for one person to say, "This is what I mean by 'shred'."

This is why "flame" may refer to either a person or a fire. It depends entirely on context. Communication is a transmission of information, and all information comes inside a context. If a mutual friend comes up and asks, "How is Alex's latest flame?", (assuming Alex isn't a pyromaniac) we can safely suppose he's talking about a person. On the other hand, if my friend says, "Turn the flame down," he probably isn't talking about Patricia.

And that is my third argument: definitions must be agreed upon for words to be useful. I refer to this as a shared culture. Two people share the same culture when they use the same word in the same manner. What was the objection I was answering, you might be wondering? It's, "If words are malleable and dictionaries are unreliable, how is it anyone understands me when I say anything?" Because we share the same culture. This entire essay would be gibberish to Chaucer, you know.

So, hopefully, using my three arguments, I've shown that there's a need to agree on definitions when opening into a discussion. This is something that philosophers and scientists are constantly doing. In science, they do it at the beginning of their papers, explaining what they're measuring and how and why. In philosophy, they're establishing what they're talking about as a premise.

In my experience, many, many disagreements can be traced back to a disagreement in definition. A person might view a marriage as a union of companions and their spouse might view it as a way to get a green card. And, unless they learn of this and reconcile their beliefs--their definitions--openly, their marriage will fall apart. I'm not suggesting that a perfect word-to-meaning lexicon will solve the world's problems, but it would certainly make it possible to actually talk.

[infinitethoughts]

@ Michael Chui.

That was a very timely post and what you say is entirely true.

One can also observe how definitons of a lot of words in Dictionaries are 'twisted', depending on which body is the ruling power.

[InJoy]

Great post, Michael. Very well thought out. I agree with a lot of it, especially the part about word definitions being arbitrary, and the part about it being absolutely necessary that communicators agree upon their definitions in the context of discussion. That said, I have a few points to make.

If words are infinitely malleable (and I agree they are), then it is impossible to accurately define one. There will be no such thing as a factual definition of a word. Therefore, it all comes down to someone's opinion. All we can hope for is an agreement of definition. (Luckily this works well for discussion purposes.) 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.

As an example, when you asked for a definition from me a while back, I Googled it and got my list of definitions from different sources. I went through that list and found the one I most agreed with and offered it to you. Your first response was that you didn't like my source (dictionary). I think that is an illogical response. 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.

I would also question why you think dictionaries are so worthless, yet you seem to find great value in Wikipedia. It is also written by humans, but often by humans with little or no expertise in the area about which they write. (My question, in this regard, is more out of curiosity, though, because I truly believe that as long as we can agree on a definition, the source is irrelevant.)

Ok, next point.

While I think that making sure that you mean "flame" like fire and I mean "flame" like fire is absolutely necessary for a meaningful discussion, I also think this can be taken too far. If I tell you that my definition of "flame" is a luminous body of burning gas or vapor, and your response is to ask me to define "luminous", "body", "burning", "gas", and "vapor", this is going to lead us down a bottomless pit. I think that once we agree that we are both talking about flame being the fire kind of flame, that should be enough. Don't you? And if you disagree, please tell me where you think the definitions of definitions should end.

One last thing. I'm thinking that this whole definitions thing can be taken too far when used unnecessarily. That point is illustrated in my previous paragraph. It can also be a waste of time to demand definitions that are already clear. Let's say that I make the statement, "I love the lighting offered by a candle's flame." 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.

So, what do you think?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui
In my experience, many, many disagreements can be traced back to a disagreement in definition.

You are obviously correct... but I would like to add that many disagreement are due to different "Personal Rules."

We all have our Personal Rules on most subject...

Take sport as an example... one person's rule may be that "You must win at all cost." Another person's rule could be that, "Sport is just for fun and there is no need to kill yourself in trying to win."

Now, if these two persons are on the same team... there is bound to be some disagreement...

The problem with "Personal Rules" is that we all feel that they are universal and the same for everyone... sadly... they obviously are not...

.

[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.

[InJoy]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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!

[John Wesley]

You're preaching to the converted here. People don't pay enough attention to what words mean anymore. Our language is getting extremely convoluted with corporate and political speak that doesn't really say anything.

[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.

[BanditFlyer]

Firstly, I'd like to voice my objection to long posts.

Now that we have that out of the way ....

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So concludes my first argument: words are malleable. They are infinitely malleable. And if something is so malleable, how can it have a fixed definition?

Does it need] a fixed definition to be usefull?

Coming at this from a background in computer programming, I'd say no. Certain words are deprecated, no longer in use, have different meanings in different usages, etc, but they are still eminently useful. And you MUST know the definition in order to be able to use them effectively.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

This is my second argument: dictionaries are unreliable, because they are written by people.

Toyotas are designed by people. Are they unreliable? That's a weak argument if ever there was one.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

And that is my third argument: definitions must be agreed upon for words to be useful.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I refer to this as a shared culture. Two people share the same culture when they use the same word in the same manner.

I disagree (with your usage of the word "culture").

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So, hopefully, using my three arguments, I've shown that there's a need to agree on definitions when opening into a discussion. This is something that philosophers and scientists are constantly doing. In science, they do it at the beginning of their papers, explaining what they're measuring and how and why. In philosophy, they're establishing what they're talking about as a premise.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that there's a need to agree on definitions when opening a discussion, but I disagree with some of the points in your arguments.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Now that we have that out of the way ....Does it need a fixed definition to be usefull?

No. I never suggested that you need a fixed definition. I'm objecting to the claim that there is a fixed definition at all. And because there are no fixed definitions, despite the fact that people will point at dictionaries when defining words, the definition of words must be agreed upon before the words can be used. Which is what you said. I think I need to work on clarity.

And I have a background in computer programming, too.

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Toyotas are designed by people. Are they unreliable? That's a weak argument if ever there was one.

Toyotas are not authorities. I don't see how they could conceivably be reliable as authorities.

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

I disagree (with your usage of the word "culture").

It amuses me that you decided not to ask. Or to provide your own. But I guess that would have made your post too long?

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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

In a face-to-face discussion, I suppose that implying or suggesting something through actions might be acceptable in debate, but on an Internet forum, I hold that it is not. We do not have the benefit of physical cues to help things along here. I believe we need to use the language of words whenever possible to further our point. To attempt to "suggest" ideas or objections using a medium that is limited to the written word is unreasonable. It's simply too easy to miss (or misinterpret!) non-"verbal" suggestions using this medium of communication.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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

...

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.

...

I'm having a problem with your trivialization of philosophy.

...

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.

Michael, I genuinely apologize if anything I said suggested a trivialization of philosophy, debate, or its discussion. I do feel it's important. And fascinating. And worthy of my time.

It might be useful for you to understand that, when I first came to post to these forums several weeks back, I was recovering from surgery and had (much) more-than-usual "butt time". Now that I am nearly fully recovered, my life is getting back to its original busy-ness.

I have many passions that take precedence (for me) over my interest in philosophy and debate. I am (NNiTO) a homeschooling parent, a spouse, a writer, an artist, an aspiring healer, a student of Joy, a photographer, and a web designer. Lately, I've had an average of about an hour a day to actually read and write within the discussions on these lovely boards. With that kind of limitation, choosing to respond to one of your massive (and quite brilliant) arguments, is often a choice to only participate in that particular discussion for that day. That's a difficult choice when there are other threads around that interest me as well.

Regardless of my own interests and priorities, I do respect your passion for argument, and again, if I said anything that you took as belittlement, please forgive.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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.

Whoops. You've got me there. I concede on that point.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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.

I don't think we disagree on this. However, I would request, in the interest of time, that we agree to be more direct in what it is we are after in a discussion. Let's agree to keep suggestive implications down to a low roar. (If we must use them at all.) I understand your desire to learn what another person thinks of a thing, and I think you can still attain that, but if I offer you a definition you disagree with, just tell me so and offer up yours. I'll do the same. Okay?

[jamestl2]

Maybe we should just come up with a bunch of new words to fit different scenarios to replace words that have more than one definition.

I'm sure we could invent enough new words so we don't become confused by a word's definition, or at least not *as* confused.

[Magicinthenight]

I love this thread. But then I love Derrida and his take on deconstructing the text.

Who was it that said that language is a constant process of contract making? That in order to communicate, we continually assume the people partaking in the discussion are acting under the same contract as we are. That we assume that the words we speak are understood under that contract ie. the way we intend them to be understood.

Yet this is something that is VERY difficult to achieve. People always have their OWN meaning for words. I say dog and someone immediately thinks:labrador, another one thinks of a German Shepherd AND to top that all of, they immediately categorise that word into something in their head: if they've had good experiences with dogs the category might be more pleasant than if they've had bad experiences with dogs. So even a simple word can have loaded meaning to a person. And yet we still speak and write under the assumption everyone shares the same concept of a word. Lunacy, eh.

But, also, I think that if we were to spend all our times conveying the meaning we attach to words we'd get nothing done. Therefore we have to make assumptions, we have to gloss over disrepancies in our daily lives. We have to act on the assumption that we are all more or less talking about the same thing when we say the word dog.

It's when people have very different meaning for words that we can have huge arguments that will lead to nothing else but highlighting that yes, these individuals see these clusters of letters as different things. Can be a great debate and the end result may be that the individuals in question will realise they're just both acting on the basis of their own assumptions. Or they can just both decide that the other person's meaning is "wrong" and theirs is "right".

Anyway, cool stuff. Oh and I'd recommend Derrida's essay Structure, Sign and Play for anyone interested in the concept of deconstructing. It's a lot of FUN.

ETA: Just realised how old this thread was! Well, the subject matter is still interesting.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Magicinthenight

Just realised how old this thread was! Well, the subject matter is still interesting.

Heh, it's okay. I had a sneaking suspicion there would be a resurrection when I linked it.