Good question. I sincerely hope so.

How u define word "Gender" ?

Are you high? — apokrisis

I'm quite interested in what you say, apo, but you are clearly not interested in what I say. For you there is your way and silly ways. I think that makes you higher than me at least in your own estimation.

Where was your question?

Were you wanting a definition of force as a term of art in modern physics as opposed to the many other ways of using the same word in colloquial language?

Seems like you just wanted to rant and blow off steam.

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

You have a curious way of discussing. Are you dismissing what I say without argument? Are you unable to understand another point of view at all? Is your wife having an affair? It seems you and I need to talk about personal issues before we can do philosophy together. (Mine is bigger.)

I would say that we know the definitions of many words, and that we come to know the definitions of words that we don't yet know the definition of, in terms of our understandings of the words we don know the definitions of. This born about by the fact that even though we show our understanding of words by way of actions; we can also show our understanding of words by being able to demonstrate the ability to define them.

Are you dismissing what I say without argument? — unenlightened

Yep. Guess so,

If that were so, writing the OED was presumably a bit of a doddle...

Moreoften, we know how to use the word without being able to provide a definition. Hence, providing a suitable definition is often quite difficult.

Disagreeing with either Banno or Apo quickly leads to the conversation crashing. It's frustrating and annoying. It's interesting watching them interact with each other.

If that were so, writing the OED was presumably a bit of a doddle... — Banno

How would that work?

Hence, providing a suitable definition is often quite difficult. — Banno

Providing a definition of familiar objects is not difficult. It may be more difficult to provide definitions for various emotions, though, or words like "the", "this" "I", "Mind" and so on, for obvious reasons.

Of course we can use words without explicitly having definitions of them in mind. But if we can use (at least familiar object) words we should be able to define them. Even emotions and the other kinds of words I referred to can be roughly defined.

They are by no means alone in that!

Hm. Most folk can use the word "tree"; and tell a tree from a shrub, or a bush. But setting that out in words, to the exclusion of shrubs and bushes - that would require some effort.

The salient bit being, we do not need to be able to give the definition in order to use the word.

Ah, you love it. You keep coming back.

But seriously, send me a PM if I am being too much of a dick. Or ask a mod to do it for you.

Indeed, but they are both smart and interesting. It doesn't bother me so much if a poster has little of interest to say.

Oh, I would have said that characteristic is more prevalent among the smarter and more interesting (which is of course not to say that all those who are in the higher echelons of a smarthood and being interesting share that characteristic).

Sure, 'shrub' and 'tree' are words which shade into one another; but by no means all words or even most, or even perhaps many, words are like that.

The salient bit being, we do not need to be able to give the definition in order to use the word. — Banno

I didn't say you are fun to play with except in public. I only get to play with you in public!

I am selective.

Well we don't need to be able to give a precise definition of fuzzy words of course, but that is self-evident in the definition of such words.

:ok: Gotta go...

SO why not drop pointing and go straight to use. — Banno

Quine doesn't mean reference isn't a game of pointing, only that it's a game of pretend.

Pointing is a gross oversimplification. — Banno

But generally also the assumed basis of any more complex clarification. (E.g. counting, sorting.)

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

We have disagreed on so much, Banno, allow me this moment to agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here.

One of the problems I have with descriptors is the meaning or definition of the descriptor. "I am an atheist" means so many different things to different people, it makes very little sense to use it. "I am a liberal"; "I am a conservative; "He is not honest"; "She is fair"...and the like have that same problem. It is almost useless to use them except in casual conversation. Here in a forum dedicated to "Philosophy" (also ambiguous to many) we should be more explicit.

Maybe more later. I'm just listening in an learning for the moment.

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?

What does it mean to understand a word? If you asked me what a word means and I don't use a dictionary, rather I use gestures (what does "clapping" mean?) and facial expressions (what does "sad" mean?), will that show you what a word means without using other words?

To understand any word, don't you have to know that they are something that you can look up in dictionaries?

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

The word "chair" can't mean chair leg, or chair back because those are more primitive ostensive definitions. Definitions, in my humble opinion, build up from the simple to the more complex. Having not understood what "leg" or "back" means, it's impossible to understand what a chair is but once these ostensive definitions are under your belt, you can easily comprehend that a chair is something that has legs, a back, and other essential features.

Let's do an exercise. Take the most abstract concept you can think of and look at the word used for it. You'll notice that its etymology contains words that are definable ostensively. For example "mathematics" has the etymology "fond of learning" and both "fond" and "learning" can be ostensively defined.

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?

When thinking about democracy what are you thinking about - more scribbles or sounds in your head?

What makes the sound of the word "democracy" usable in the same way a scribble,"democracy" is used? If scribbles and sounds can point to each other, then why can't scribbles and feelings or sounds and smells?

One might want to discuss "What is a force?" — unenlightened

I've got a better idea. Let's not discuss "force". It would take me years to get over that one.

We can escape the evil dictionary by pointing at what we're on about.
In some cases anyway, like, say, there aren't any running elephants in the dictionary, but we can show evidence of a stampede.
I guess this would then be a use of "running elephants".
Exemplification teaches use.
In logic/mathematics, axioms are definitions, though; they do have some use.
Then what about non-axiomatic cases when there isn't anything to point at?
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?

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

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.

Dictionaries describe usage, no? They're useful when there is confusion over different usages, as in the various senses of 'consciousness'.