On Stipulative Definitions.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    I wanted to ask the moderators if they can be cognizant when seeing a thread about God or language, that a stipulative definition become clear. Instead of bogging down in straw men that are created from these stipulative definitions that might be professed unconsciously, then it needs to be made conscious that a definition differs from the original textbook definition of some term. As to how the definition differs from the original would be the main gist of the topic.

    A lot of clarification is needed here. Sorry to bother, but I feel this is quite important in creating better threads.
    Shawn Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Philosophy is chock to the brim with 'stipulated definitions', and context ought to make clear when they are in effect. I trust members to call people out who aren't clear about their use of words, and it's really not our job to chase people asking 'but what do you mean by such-and-such?'. If a thread is bad, it generally speaks for itself. Appreciate the thought though.

    Besides, all definitions are stipulated definitions until people forget that they are.
    Streetlight Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    ↪StreetlightX


    I don't know how to put it; but, stipulated definitions are a form of false notions of what the object of inquiry ( God forbid abstractions ) are.

    I feel as though one is closer to the 'truth' if we do away with stipulated definitions of terms.

    But, there's a serious conundrum with a stipulated definition. Which one is right and how can we evaulate or form a criteria to judge them?

    Just some very pertinent questions to the matter.
    Shawn Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    There is no such thing as a 'right' meaning. Unclear and odd, sure.
    Streetlight Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    There is no such thing as a 'right' meaning. — StreetlightX

    How so? Is this just postmodernism being professed here?

    Unclear and odd, sure. — StreetlightX

    Yes, that bugs me. So, what can be done about it?
    Shawn Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    How so? Is this just postmodernism being professed here? — Posty McPostface

    No, it's just basic language 101.

    Yes, that bugs me. So, what can be done about it? — Posty McPostface

    Ask people to clarify what they mean, obviously. This is just trivial communication etiquette, not some philosophical mystery.
    Streetlight Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Anyway, I'm not here to debate this, this is your second thread on this topic, and if you aren't going to stick to addressing a particular mod-related line of inquiry here, I will merge any further discussion into your other thread.
    Streetlight Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    No, it's just basic language 101. — StreetlightX

    Not so basic if a great deal of confusion, ambiguity, vagueness comes about.

    Ask people to clarify what they mean, obviously. This is just trivial communication, not some philosophical mystery. — StreetlightX

    Ambiguity, vagueness, and uncertainty about terms is surely a philosophical issue, no?

    Clarifying them is the job of the philosopher. Kind of reminiscent of treating philosophy as linguistic therapy.
    Shawn Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    In this context it's usually a people-being-bad-at-communicating issue.

    Don't ascribe to philosophy what you can put down to incompetence.
    Streetlight Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    In this context it's usually a people-being-bad-at-communicating issue. — StreetlightX

    So, then a philosopher ought to improve how we communicate? Does that sound right?

    Don't ascribe to philosophy what you can put down to incompetence. — StreetlightX

    No, it's the other way around. Philosophers are competent individuals in the art of communication. Therefore any "newbies" that join the forum and stipulate a definition based on some mystical experience or whatnot ought to be addressed with how the stipulative definition differs from the established definition.

    Then, ambiguity, vagueness, and uncertainty can be mitigated through this method, and a real discussion can be held with the participant then.
    Shawn Options
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Philosophers are competent individuals in the art of communication. — Posty McPostface

    Oh sweet summer child.

    If you think a thread is not good, report it.
    Streetlight Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    ↪StreetlightX


    What do other mods think? You seem to have some underlying prejudice against what I'm professing. That's fine.
    Shawn Options
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    I want to just be clear that I'm not for reporting threads and deleting them or such. The point should be to restructure or give form to some discussion by alleviating false notions derived from some stipulated definition.

    That's all.
    Shawn Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories