Sure, any serious discussion ought to include clarifying the meanings of the terms in use. And no, as long as the stipulated definition is made explicit, it does not have to conform to a dictionary meaning. Of course, that stipulated definition may cause a discussion on its own.

Absent definition, discussions often become nonsensical.

Sometimes definitions can be omitted, but usually for some reason, perhaps to see where the discussion might go with freely varying understandings.

Sometimes definitions can be omitted, but usually for some reason, perhaps to see where the discussion might go with freely varying understandings. — tim wood

For example. Wittgenstein has a very specific stipulative definition on many things (die Welt, reality, sachlage, sachverhalten, etc.). The fact that he does inspires interest in his philosophy. The same can be said of Heidegger. Therefore, stipulative definitions are the cornerstone of philosophical inquiry.

Would you agree?

Cornerstone seems excessive commendation. And I'd be hesitant to attribute interest in Heidegger to his coinages. I see them as being like traffic signs - here's the road, if you want to travel this way.

I see them as being like traffic signs - here's the road, if you want to travel this way. — tim wood

But, they attain their meaning by describing the world another way than what is usually attributed by virtue of their stipulative definitions. Is this correct?

Other than by their standard meanings, you mean, yes? Yes. It would seem as if anyone with a new idea has to invent, adopt, or co-opt language. It becomes a subject of complaint; it ought to be part of the package that we admire, even as we try to understand it.

Other than by their standard meanings, you mean, yes? Yes. It would seem as if anyone with a new idea has to invent, adopt, or co-opt language. It becomes a subject of complaint; it ought to be part of the package that we admire, even as we try to understand it. — tim wood

So, then the question becomes, what are stipulative definitions at all? It rings of question begging.

I disagree. Difficult new ideas often require their own vocabulary. It's not question begging to define a term. To stipulate, in this context, merely means to establish and make clear. An author who "borrows" a word, for decency's sake and clarity's, should acknowledge just what it is he's plundering.

I disagree. — tim wood

So, it's not question begging; but, what then? It seems like to stipulate a definition, one has to know the entirety of the how the ordinary dictionary definition is used in some context. Hence, confusion and ambiguity is often the case when dealing with stipulative definitions.

So, what can be gathered from this exchange is that stipulative definitions need to be expressed in language to survive. The forms of life as Wittgenstein would say from these language games is derived from the usage of a stipulative definition.

Thoughts, criticisms, puns welcome.

Stipulative definitions are derived from what then>?

Is it somewhat metaphysical to talk about where stipulative definitions derive their meaning?

My topic on the Principle of Bipolarity might elucidate where stipulative definitions can attain meaning or even facthood.

There is more to this that just common vs stipulative definitions. Further confusing/adding difficulty to these online discussions is intellectually dishonest definitions, meant to purposely skew the available responses. That itself is further muddied by the fact that in certain context real, solid discussion actually requires the pirposeful skewing minus the intellectual dishonesty. Hard to see the difference sometimes, even for the person doing it.
There is also a semantic consideration as well. Ive observed that there is often a sloppy conflation of definition of words and semantics with the argument/concept being discussed or proffered.
Not trying to ride a high horse here, im guilty myself.
Its much more important to try and understand what a person means rather than focus on the specific words they use. This is a problem of the medium I believe. Most of communication is non verbal and so we trade much of our ability to convey our POV for a certain precision and the sweet sweet worldwide connectivity (how else do you get such a huge variety of perspectives so easily and enumerate?). Im not sure the tradeoff is worth it as far as productive discussion goes...shitty quality or none at all?

Further confusing/adding difficulty to these online discussions is intellectually dishonest definitions, meant to purposely skew the available responses. — DingoJones

I agree and think that much confusion or ambiguity would be avoided if people stated their premises and conclusions more clearly by introducing a stipulative definition. I mean to say that it would be more useful if people stated clearly the stipulative definitions they use.

I understand that some people might even be unaware that they are using a definition in a stipulative manner, therefore there's nothing that can be done in that regard other than recognizing that a person is using a stipulative definition and expressing that to the OP or person posting a new topic.

So, should it be a moderator's role to ask anyone starting a new topic to state their definitions clearly to avoid ambiguity and vagueness resulting in potential straw man's and such?

I think the burden should not be on the OP so much as the people responding. You should clarify what someone means before trying to counter-argue or engage with them.
I suppose its the responsibility for all parties, but I observe that people are more careful in their OP than people are to respond to them. They care less about what the person is trying to say and much more about picking out things they can use to bolster thier own pre-existing position or (one that particularly annoys me) to use what they can in the OP to twist the intended topic to one of thier own pet opinions.

I think the burden should not be on the OP so much as the people responding. You should clarify what someone means before trying to counter-argue or engage with them. — DingoJones

Yes; but, a straw man can only be formed based on false assumptions or premises.

I suppose its the responsibility for all parties, but I observe that people are more careful in their OP than people are to respond to them. — DingoJones

Yes, I hope so too; but, that's not the impression I get when I see religious discussions or posts dedicated to the art of morality.

They care less about what the person is trying to say and much more about picking out things they can use to bolster thier own pre-existing position or (one that particularly annoys me) to use what they can in the OP to twist the intended topic to one of thier own pet opinions. — DingoJones

I think that often happens with posts about religion. You do see that sort of stuff in topics about the philosophy of language.

Well I imagine things that are very polarised like religion result in more of this poor behaviour we are talking about. It doesnt help that with religion, certain positions are necessarily insulting to the other side.
What do you mean by “art of morality”?

What do you mean by “art of morality”? — DingoJones

Quality post, btw. I mean by that to say that a person is possessed with a certain conception of morality and they then being or spewing falsely derived synthetic a posteriori conclusions about moral behavior in life.

That's what I think I meant...

Lol, ok well let me see if I get it here..
Sounds like you are saying any given conception of morality results in synthetic a posteriori conclusions about morality. I take it you are a moral relativist of some kind?
I dont see how you get to calling it “art”, am
I being to literal?

Well, I firmly believe that we are infinitely more complex than saying "people only desire pleasure" or "people seek the aversion of pain, and maximize this aversion". Or "people desire or are defamatory because that can't attain power." What do you think, aren't these just brief stipulations on what morality is? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

All of these are really stipulations of an idealized concept of "morality".

What do you think?

Unfortunately Im not sure what you are asking my opinion on here.
Do you intend those quoted portions as false moral axioms?
It doesnt seem odd to me for people to make attempts to come up with ways of thinking about morality or moral structures.
Im not sure any morality isnt intended to be idealized. Aren’t morals always intended as ideal?

I'm not sure here.

It doesnt seem odd to me for people to make attempts to come up with ways of thinking about morality or moral structures. — DingoJones

Yes, morality is much more complex than creating simple statements that a utilitarian calculus of morality could accept.

Im not sure any morality isnt intended to be idealized. Aren’t morals always intended as ideal? — DingoJones

Well, I hope they are. Since most moral statements seem to be subject to being either true or false if they are moral propositions. Therefore, true morality is subject to be ideal because they are not as simple as simple statements about it.

I prefer to think of morals as inconsistent or consistent rather than true/false. Its not about what moral position someone has, but rather how they arrived there. True morality cannot exist without a basic principal of consistency, it must abhor hypocracy and the double standard or it has no validity, it is meaningless otherwise. Consistency is One of the traits from which we get an objective moral standard.

Consistency is One of the traits from which we get an objective moral standard. — DingoJones

What is that objective moral standard if not an idealized perception of it? It's almost some noumena that we can only observe.

I guess it depends on what you mean by idealised...to me that seems like an unnecessary layer you are adding there...

I guess it depends on what you mean by idealised...to me that seems like an unnecessary layer you are adding there... — DingoJones

By idealized I mean that they exist the in the sphere of imagination/thought/mind; but, can become realities in the world.

Ah, I see. Yea, like any set of rules.

Ah, I see. Yea, like any set of rules. — DingoJones

Yes, rules are bad. But some are common that we seem to live by them. So, we take these rules to be true, which they are in a majority of cases, but sometimes we need to reevaluate as 'good'. This place is like one.

I didnt say rules are bad, I just meant that ethical rules are like any other rules.
I dont understand “this place is like one”...?
I dont think we take rules to be “true”, I think we agree to follow them or not. They are a tool.

I dont think we take rules to be “true”, I think we agree to follow them or not. They are a tool. — DingoJones

A tool of what? What do you mean by tool here?