Regularly on this forum we see topics that seek to define certain concepts with precision and exactitude. Without a precisely-defined vocabulary, we are told, there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion. I disagree, and that's what this topic is about. — Pattern-chaser
The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.
So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa
That is, general terms are abstract. As abstract they are nothing in themselves and without utility except as code for a specific but not-particularized quality. — tim wood
The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.
So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa
:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job? — Pattern-chaser
This is a well thought out and well written post. It's also one that I disagree with. For me, the biggest frustration on the forum is long, wandering discussions that never get anywhere because terms are not defined at the beginning. I would say half the threads have this problem. — T Clark
The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.
So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa
:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job? — Pattern-chaser
↪Pattern-chaser
Yeah, I guess if its "intended job" is to confuse and obscure... — Frank Apisa
I think the use of general terms is that they work very well in everyday language, because context makes them clear and precise. The trouble philosophy sometimes encounters is that it takes terms that have a clear meaning in everyday situations, like 'truth' for instance ("is it true that you hit your sister?"), and then try to use them devoid of context, in a philosophical discussion. Sometimes this can be resolved by making a painstakingly precise definition of the word for the purpose of the philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, that is not often done and people just blunder ahead, accusing anybody that asks 'what do you mean by truth' of being deliberately obstructive. But there are cases where it is not even possible to give a satisfactory definition of the notion that is being discussed. I think 'free will' is an example of that.
It demonstrates the limits of language, which is an important and powerful philosophical concept to grasp. Thus, in the very process of failing in one philosophical endeavour, we get insight into another important philosophical notion. — andrewk
If meaning is a matter of establishing the coordinates of position on a map everyone somehow has in their possession, then all the patter of disagreement can be put down as some kind of misunderstanding about a place on the map. — Valentinus
That's not to say that starting with vague and loosely defined concepts doesn't happen a lot around here. That either will lead to a sharpening and defining of the issue or else people will tend to give up in exasperation and move onto a more fully thought out topic. — Joshs
Pirsig asserted that we all know what Quality is, it's only when we try to write down a precise definition that we get into trouble. Fair enough. But perhaps the problem might only be that Quality is a general term — Pattern-chaser
No, if "atheist" is a general term such as we are describing (I'm not 100% convinced it is, which is why I said "maybe"), then its intended job is to describe something that is not precisely defined, so it describes that something imprecisely. Your reference to (intentional) "confuse and obscure" looks like a simple attempt to discredit the idea and the existence of general terms. But I'm sure I misunderstand...? — Pattern-chaser
Why would someone want to have a discussion about anything...and insure that the matter being discussed is obscure? — Frank Apisa
If a person identifies as an "atheist" and speaks of "atheistic" positions on an issue...why on Earth would you want those positions to be ill-defined? — Frank Apisa
So...what is your point...what are you proposing here? — Frank Apisa
The test is if you can give a good definition of a general term. — tim wood
You see both types of discussion on this site, those with vaguely defined terms which attract beginning philosophers,and those that begin with and maintain a high degree of focus and relative precision. — Joshs
As an example, I could define “truth” to mean having the quality of corresponding to fact or reality. Then we would argue not only on this definition; but also of the definitions of “quality”, “correspond”, “fact”, and “reality”. This could go on for months. — Noah Te Stroete
↪Pattern-chaser
"So you're not sympathetic to the knowing discussion of imprecisely defined things? Is there a reason why?"
I have a background in philosophy and its much more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion where there is enough mutual knowledge of historical figures or relevant ideas to start the conversation with a certain coherence. Others with much less background may find just the attempt to raise overarching questions about life to be satisfying. After college, many aren't able to find ways to become involved in such discussions as the mundane obligations of life begin to close in.
You see both types of discussion on this site, those with vaguely defined terms which attract beginning philosophers,and those that begin with and maintain a high degree of focus and relative precision. — Joshs
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.