Are you high? — apokrisis
Is this philosophy as practiced by academia or the kind of “philosophy” that believes in crystals and scented candles? — apokrisis
Are you high? — apokrisis
you just wanted to rant and blow off steam. — apokrisis
If that were so, writing the OED was presumably a bit of a doddle... — Banno
Hence, providing a suitable definition is often quite difficult. — Banno
Banno
8.7k
Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary.
Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition.
Iterate.
Given that there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, the process will eventually lead to repetition.
If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular.
There must, therefore, be a way of understanding a word that is not given by providing its definition.
Now this seems quite obvious; and yet so many begin their discussion with "let's first define our terms". — Banno
In kindergarten the teacher doesn't use definitions made up of other words. The teacher uses definitions made of pictures. So it's not circular if words refer to visuals, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings. After all, words are merely visual scribbles and sounds themselves that refer to other types of visuals, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings, or an amalgam of all of these. Words refer to things that aren't words. Can your thoughts take any other form other than visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory and tactile sensory impressions? In thinking what a word means, are you not having some sort of visual or auditory experience - in relating some scribble with some color as in "red" means some color?Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary.
Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition.
Iterate.
Given that there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, the process will eventually lead to repetition.
If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular.
There must, therefore, be a way of understanding a word that is not given by providing its definition.
Now this seems quite obvious; and yet so many begin their discussion with "let's first define our terms". — Banno
But it could mean chair leg, or chair back, or undetached chair part....
But moreover, how will you point to democracy? To parsimony? To three hundred and forty six thousand, nine hundred and twenty one? to encoded? To unfortunately? To volume?
If you are right then you must be able to do this for... almost every word.
But then once done, someone will begin using the word in a new way...
SO why not drop pointing and go straight to use. — Banno
Pointing is a use. What other uses does a word have? Does a word ( a sound/scribble) point to its definition (more scribbles and sounds)? If so, then why can't a scribble or sound point to a smell, taste or feeling?SO why not drop pointing and go straight to use. — Banno
One might want to discuss "What is a force?" — unenlightened
Like I was asking Banno, when thinking about unicorns, what are you thinking about- an image of scribbles "unicorn" or the image of a horse with a horn? If its the latter, then the scribble points to the idea of a unicorn which is a mental image of a horse with a horn.For unicorns we can at least point at childrens books and cartoons, which give us uses of the word "unicorn".
Is something like this always the case, though? — jorndoe
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.