What about stipulative definitions? What to do about those that plague philosophy?

When discussing this kind of thing, it is well to remember that dictionaries do not actually "define" words...they simply indicate how they are most often used.

Sometimes they even get that wrong!

they simply indicate how they are most often used.

Sometimes they even get that wrong! — Frank Apisa

If only there were a fact of the matter, to be right and wrong about... A population of word-use events, from which to sample appropriately.

And if it weren't for pesky kids like Humpty Dumpty, Quine (Gavagai), and Chomsky (probability of an utterance)...

Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused:

I think that not defining something accurately means you are not likely to be explaining or exploring the right thing.

This is particularly relevant in psychology and philosophy of mind but also in any field with where there is not an external object to hang a definition onto including social theory and politics.

Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused: — jgill

How so? And keeping in mind that Achilleus's heel itself as a heel worked just fine, no complaints.

Andrew4Handel
1.4k
I think that not defining something accurately means you are not likely to be explaining or exploring the right thing.

This is particularly relevant in psychology and philosophy of mind but also in any field with where there is not an external object to hang a definition onto including social theory and politics. — Andrew4Handel

Sometime, one simply CANNOT meaningfully or accurately "define" a thing.

Best example I can think of is the word "atheist." It is a descriptor...but what it means is all over the place.

And the dictionaries are of little help, because their "definitions" vary significantly...and, at times, are misleading.

This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I'll leave it here.

The word "God" is another...especially when capitalized.

If you can, define "descriptor" - particularly how it differs from "definition" - without being, as you say, "misleading".

Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused: — jgill

How so? And keeping in mind that Achilleus's heel itself as a heel worked just fine, no complaints. — tim wood

Wiki: "An Achilles' heel or Achilles heel is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall. While the mythological origin refers to a physical vulnerability, idiomatic references to other attributes or qualities that can lead to downfall are common."

So how is starting with preliminary definitions a weakness? Or do you like discussions wherein you do not know what you are talking about, the other fellow doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither know what the other is talking about?

Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. So I think it's worth making the following points:

1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."

2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."

3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.

For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.

I wish this didn't have to be explicitly stated. — Xtrix

The problem I see with technical definitions of words insofar as they're radically different from the conventional lexical definitions of those words is that then they're no longer meaningful to the common man and to the degree to that they're not, they lose their relevance to life and living. If you do survey of topics with techinical definitions that differ greatly from their common lexical definitions I feel they'll be about highly abstract matters - far removed from what people are concerned about in their day to day lives.

180 Proof
923
↪Frank Apisa If you can, define "descriptor" - particularly how it differs from "definition" - without being, as you say, "misleading". — 180 Proof

It seems pretty clear to me. What are you trying to do here, play a variation of the game that causes some people (perhaps Tim) to suggest that "definitions" are the Achilles heel of philosophy?

"Democrat" is a descriptor..."registered member of the Democratic Party" is a definition of that descriptor.

"Methodist" is a descriptor..."member of a Protestant denomination of Christianity that is attributed to the teaching of John Wesley and others" is a definition of that descriptor.

"Valedictorian" is a descriptor...usually "the student in a class who achieved the highest academic excellence" is a definition of that descriptor.

Time for an appropriate joke:

The wife of noted lexicographer Noah Webster unexpectedly walks into the family parlor and discovers Noah passionately kissing the downstairs maid.

"I am surprised," she declares.

"No, my dear," responds Webster, "you are astonished. It is I who am surprised."


Okay, break over. Back to work.

Time for an appropriate joke: — Frank Apisa

:rofl: Don't worry, , we got yours too. (we did ??!)

:roll: So you can't DEFINE "descriptor" in terms of how it DIFFERS from how "definition" is DEFINED (either commonly or technically) ... ok. No wonder, then, you don't understand that claiming you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED' is incoherent, or an empty claim.

180 Proof
924
↪Frank Apisa :roll: So you can't DEFINE "descriptor" in terms of how it DIFFERS from how "definition" is DEFINED (either commonly or technically) ... ok. No wonder, then, you don't understand that claiming you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED' is incoherent, or an empty claim. — 180 Proof

Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else. I'd choose someone where you actually are correct...and the other person wrong, though!

:wink:

Time for an appropriate joke:

The wife of noted lexicographer Noah Webster unexpectedly walks into the family parlor and discovers Noah passionately kissing the downstairs maid.

"I am surprised," she declares.

"No, my dear," responds Webster, "you are astonished. It is I who am surprised."


Okay, break over. Back to work. — Frank Apisa

:rofl: I don't want ever to be surprised or astonished. Mildly amused maybe.

With all these demands for definitions of words using other words, more words still, we're going to run out of words in the dictionary.
What'll we do then, how will we live? :D

Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else. — Frank Apisa

Stop projecting ... :lol:

180 Proof
925
Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else.
— Frank Apisa
Stop projecting ... :lol: — 180 Proof

No problemo. I'm not projecting at all. :wink:

So how is starting with preliminary definitions a weakness? — tim wood

The old computer science observation: "Garbage in = garbage out"

But I realize I am guilty of judging philosophical arguments from the perspective of a (once) active, non-set theorist, mathematician. Philosophy is a much fuzzier discipline and what I perceive as a "weakness" is merely part of the game. For instance, some time back there was a discussion involving the notion of "metaphysical actuality", and I kept trying to get the person using the expression to define it. He never could, or lost interest. However, I did come across one reference in a letter to Leibniz, and from that an example was cited that made some sort of sense, at least to me. :smile:

Yup.

In any case, there are times where a "definition" is important to a reasonable discdussion. But it is my experience that in way too many Internet philosophical discussions, the request to "define X" is more a challenge intended to divert. Someone is attempting to move away from an argument that has been successful made.

Here in a philosophy forum, we should be reasonable and ethical enough to observe an absolute essential to all reasonable debate; namely, that when an argument has been adequately made and a valid point established, that point should be conceded.

All too often ego takes control...and people will do everything possible NOT to concede a valid argument.

If you do survey of topics with techinical definitions that differ greatly from their common lexical definitions I feel they'll be about highly abstract matters - far removed from what people are concerned about in their day to day lives. — TheMadFool

Sure. So what? Take, as I mentioned, the example of "energy." I know what people mean when they talk about "having no energy today," or something to that effect. Or when Trump labeled Geb Bush "Low energy Geb" or something like that. In neither case are we using "energy" the way it's used in physics. But is that a problem? All it means is that common sense notions and everyday usage doesn't work in that particular domain of study.

In medicine, it's particularly important to use the right terms -- specificity and detail matter. In mathematics, it's absolutely essential, although this is the most extreme case perhaps.

My point in raising this issue is simply not appealing to common usage when discussing science or philosophy, or simply engaging in a fruitless discussion on "let's define x," without any knowledge of the history of the field in question, its problems, its terms, its theoretical basis, etc. I see a lot of that here.

But it is my experience that in way too many Internet philosophical discussions, the request to "define X" is more a challenge intended to divert. Someone is attempting to move away from an argument that has been successful made. — Frank Apisa

All too often ego takes control...and people will do everything possible NOT to concede a valid argument. — Frank Apisa

Yes. That's a good point, and I've noticed it as well. I'm sure I've been guilty of it, in fact. It's especially "useful" to save face when someone else has far more knowledge than you do about a matter, and thus can present far more evidence and reasons for his or her argument. That's what many would accuse Socrates of doing, in fact, and one of the reasons Nietzsche (to name one) comes down pretty hard on him.

We don't simply want to be undermining everything and postponing action -- political or otherwise -- UNTIL we "finally," at long last, discover some ultimate definition or bedrock axiomatic truths. In that case, even geometry wouldn't be possible.

My point was a simple one about discussions on a philosophy forum. In that case, invoking everyday words and their meanings in to the discussion is a mistake, and shows either ignorance or a certain laziness which one would never bring to a physics or biology department.

My point was a simple one about discussions on a philosophy forum. In that case, invoking everyday words and their meanings in to the discussion is a mistake, and shows either ignorance or a certain laziness which one would never bring to a physics or biology department. — Xtrix

:up:

Our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marketing, in the lifetimes of many generation; these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs of an afternoon-the most favoured alternative method.

-Austin.

I have a friend who refuses to eat kale because of the bullshit surrounding the supposed superfood. I have explained to him that just as the bullshit is not a reason to eat kale, it is not a reason not to eat kale. It's irrelevant to the decision to eat kale.

Pretty much the same goes for definitions.

Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. — Xtrix

What does "dictionary" mean?

I have a friend who refuses to eat kale because of the bullshit surrounding the supposed superfood. I have explained to him that just as the bullshit is not a reason to eat kale, it is not a reason not to eat kale. It's irrelevant to the decision to eat kale.

Pretty much the same goes for definitions. — Banno

Well, if bullshit surrounded the kale, I wouldn't want to eat it, for sure, even if you cleaned it. The smell... :vomit:

Now, if you don't mean literal bullshit, but something else, well, we'd need you to define your use of "bullshit" to really know whether or not it would be a reason or not to eat kale.

I think you have a relevance problem akin to not being able to tell baby from bathwater. But I have a wish for you: that all your discussions/researches/inquiries be devoid of definition of any kind. Good luck!

My point in raising this issue is simply not appealing to common usage when discussing science or philosophy, or simply engaging in a fruitless discussion on "let's define x," without any knowledge of the history of the field in question, its problems, its terms, its theoretical basis, etc. I see a lot of that here. — Xtrix

Indeed, if a discourse involves the special/technical meaning of a word and if you fail to use that word correctly then, it'll be a pointless affair - interlocutors would be talking past each other and what's worse is they'll be under the mistaken belief that they're actually talking about the same thing. Is Wittgenstein relevant here?