From you, no surprise. You expressed exactly this wa-ay back. May I suggest that yours is not definition over the course of the discussion, but refinement of understanding, and in a most inefficient way. I am by no means intending to constrain or limit any discussion by suggesting that some defining is useful to start with. I am suggesting - arguing - that starting from some ground, even if that becomes contended ground, saves time and energy, reduces confusion, and facilitates discussion rather than inhibits it.The most interesting debates are those in which the terms are defined over the course of the discussion.
So, no, defining terms up front will only serve to suffocate discussion. — Banno
So... your argument is that if we decide on the definitions of our terms to start with, then we will also know where the argument will lead us...
Set up the definitions so they can only lead to the conclusion you want.
Can't fault that. — Banno
I'm persuaded that most who post to TPF neither know what a definition is nor what they're for. The evidence is many, many threads feeding on the energy of failed attempts to understand what the subject is, or what the terms mean — tim wood
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.