But if no such cooperative resolution is to be found, and an answer must be found as to which party to the conflict actually has the correct definition of the word in question, I propose that that answer be found by looking back through the history of the word's usage until the most recent uncontested usage can be found: the most recent definition of the word that was accepted by the entire linguistic community. That is then to be held as the correct definition of the word, the analytic a posteriori fact of its meaning, in much the same way that observations common to the experience of all observers constitute the synthetic a posteriori facts of the concrete world. — Pfhorrest
-- written by some Logician somewhere"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
But I will assert that a word always gets its meaning from context. — Adam's Off Ox
Likewise, words can vary based on context. I said in the very same post you responded to, "the same word can have multiple meanings, so long as the uses of the word in those multiple meanings do not conflict in context". But if multiple parties disagree about what a given word means in a given context, then you settle that by looking back to see who kept with the most recent linguistic community agreement on that, vs who broke with that agreement. — Pfhorrest
Yes. The subject of definition definitely determines how it can best be defined. In philosophical discussions you are most often defining abstract concepts that may have personal subjective connotations. In that case, simply referring to a standardized dictionary entry will miss the mark. Here's a webpage with a list of suggestions for presenting ideas. :smile:It seems there are many ways to discern a good definition but is there a best way? And what role does the subject of definition play on how it ought to be defined? — Benj96
Benj96
154
I want to define something. I want to do it as accurately as possible. That is to say I want to define something truthfully - as it really is.
What criteria do I use?
a). Unanimity - The best definition is that which most people believe to be true. As in the case of "facts" and the existence if "monetary value"
b). Stability - The best definition is that which appears to be most consistent in its parameters through time. As in the case of "laws and constants of physics."
c). Equity - the best definition of something is the qualitative/ quantitative average/mean of the sum total of all definitions of said thing. - as in the case of probability and normal distributions.
d). Explanatory capacity - the best definition is that which provides the highest level of understanding and information regarding the thing being defined.
e). Demonstration - the best definition of something is that which is most experiential in nature and self- referencing: ie the act of defining is the definition ie. In the case of "Word" or "sdrawkcab" or "re-arragned lettesr".
It seems there are many ways to discern a good definition but is there a best way? And what role does the subject of definition play on how it ought to be defined? — Benj96
If two people think each other are using a word wrongly, one of them must be right and the issue must be reconciled — Adam's Off Ox
I don't think one of them must be right. It's possibly they're both wrong. But at least one of them must be wrong, if they think they're speaking the same language. — Pfhorrest
↪Adam's Off Ox Wow okay, that's not even "descriptivism" as I've ever seen it, and I have no idea how you can manage to communicate on a first-order level much less communicate about communication while rejecting all of those things. — Pfhorrest
A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle.
— fishfry
I couldn't have said it better myself. Is it always achievable though? — Wheatley
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.