definitions that apply to words used in this question:
use : value to participants
discussing : exchanging ideas with the common goal to get a better understanding of each others position eventually leading to a better formulated unified position that all participants can agree upon.
philosophy : the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
definition : A statement of the exact meaning of a word. — Tomseltje
Define 'value', define 'ideas', define 'goal', define 'understanding', define 'better formulated', define 'rational', define 'meaning'. — Pseudonym
Interestingly I've only just been having a discussion about Wittgenstein's private language argument on another thread... — Pseudonym
I have to raise my hands in the air and admit I am guilty of same and will apply more caution with vague terms. — Marcus de Brun
I simply don't believe you actually are confused about all definitions you asked for — Tomseltje
simply don't believe you actually are confused about all definitions you asked for here, since you seemed to have understood my post too well for that in order to be so. — Tomseltje
I simply don't believe you are confused about the definition of 'animal' in relation to a vegan diet. — unenlightened
But the meaning of those terms has keep philosophers in heated debate for thousands of years. What is of value, how can value be measured, is value objective or subjective? Are ideas objects? Is what is rational anything other than a public language (like ethics and aesthetics)? The whole area of how a word can 'mean' anything objectively is, in some sense, what the whole of Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations' is about.
Anyway, the discussion I'm referring to is on the Math and Motive thread, though you'll have to get several pages in, it's really just a side-track. — Pseudonym
you could have responded in the propor thread — Tomseltje
I could. But I chose to respond here, because you used it as an example, and I think it is an example that plays against you. Arguing about what a vegan diet is would be a derailment of that thread. There is a history of usage in the context, that you ignore in favour of dictionary rigidity. And now you get all huffy. Ok dude, have your well defied discussion without me. — unenlightened
You define until you reach agreement. If what you agreed on later raises issues, you define again. — Srap Tasmaner
(a) there must be common ground to have a discussion at all; — Srap Tasmaner
(b) to explain your position to someone, you must put it in terms they understand; — Srap Tasmaner
(c) to convince someone of the <correctness, usefulness, whateverness> of your position, you must give them reasons and reasoning they'll accept. — Srap Tasmaner
What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? — Tomseltje
Bizarrely, I understood that question without the need of you providing any definitions. What does that tell you?
Sure, sometimes certain key words could do with being given a definition if they're likely to cause a problem. But there's no need to take it to extremes. I found it pretty funny that you provided a definition for "discussing" and "definition".
Also, I think you unfairly dismissed unenlightened, who had a few good points. — Sapientia
A minimum of two people involved in a discussion should at least agree on the definition of certain words before heading too far into a debate. — Dalai Dahmer
What occurs to me is that in a given discussion, there's no immediate need to pursue definitions ad infinitum. You define until you reach agreement. If what you agreed on later raises issues, you define again.
A few different ways to look at this:
(a) there must be common ground to have a discussion at all;
(b) to explain your position to someone, you must put it in terms they understand;
(c) to convince someone of the <correctness, usefulness, whateverness> of your position, you must give them reasons and reasoning they'll accept. — Srap Tasmaner
Excellent OP and thread, Tom. — Harry Hindu
Thanks for the compliment, though if it was really excellent, I ought to have included what Srap Tasmaner pointed out here. — Tomseltje
For any discussion, participants need to agree on the definitions of the terms used. Philosophical discussions are different from other types of discussions in the terms that are used and how they are defined. Philosophy itself is about questioning what we take for granted, which could be the definitions we use. — Harry Hindu
So what is so magical about the words we'd use to define these terms that they themselves do not need defining? — Pseudonym
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. — Harry Hindu
Nonsense. How did you learn what the word, "dog" means, if not establishing a connection between the string of symbols, "dog" and the image of a dog? I could show you the word, "dog", or a picture of a dog, and I would end up getting my message across all the same.When abstract terms (words) need defining, then we can only use other abstract words (terms) to do that job. At no point can we simply indicate some existant thing as the referent object. So, why do these other words not need defining? — Pseudonym
Nonsense. How did you learn what the word, "dog" means, if not establishing a connection between the string of symbols, "dog" and the image of a dog? I could show you the word, "dog", or a picture of a dog, and I would end up getting my message across all the same. — Harry Hindu
I can't ever know if there's some definition about which we disagree even if I ask, because to explain it just requires further definitions about which I will not know if we agree. — Pseudonym
(1) Why would we think we're communicating when we're not? — Srap Tasmaner
(2) Why would we think we need agreement in definitions to communicate? — Srap Tasmaner
Hmm. I thought those things were implied. For any discussion, participants need to agree on the definitions of the terms used. Philosophical discussions are different from other types of discussions in the terms that are used and how they are defined. Philosophy itself is about questioning what we take for granted, which could be the definitions we use. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.