Responses from the Community headed your way:

1. You don't understand Wittgenstein, like, at all.
2. "In my view, words are just ..." and then some completely different theory that has nothing to do with what you said or with what Bonevac said or with what Wittgenstein said.
3. Go ahead then, define "chair" for us. (Probably, but not necessarily, a variant of 1.)
4. And where do words get these essences?
5. Well, Bonevac supports Trump, whadja expect? <emoji>
6. Give us an example of a word being misused. (Related to 3; less likely to be related to 1 but likely based on at least some minimal knowledge of linguistics.)
7. What makes the use of a word a misuse? (Asked with the expectation that you won't be able to define it; this will in itself prove that you're wrong; could be 1 or, again, just some minimal acquaintance with linguistics.)
8. Patient explanations of some basic linguistics, which you in turn will argue against.
9. Patient explanations of some basic Wittgenstein, which you in turn will argue against.

I'm just going to point out two things:

1. Bonevac is a teacher. This video (which I haven't watched) was probably made with his own students in mind, if not expressly for them. He bothered to make this video to explain something he has found his students (a) mostly don't know, (b) have trouble understanding, (c) are sometimes resistant to.

In other words, you are the target audience for this video, but instead of taking in the material Bonevac offers you at no charge and reflecting on it, perhaps learning a little more about how language works, you are digging in and explaining your "position". Well, he knows your position. It's why he made the video. (Again, assuming, since I didn't watch it.)

So think about that: teacher explains "I'll bet a lot you are unaware that A, and when I tell you A, you'll find it hard to accept at first (as most of my past students have), or even understand" and then you declare for ~A almost immediately.

I'm thinking if you asked the internet whether words really have definitions, someone might answer by posting this exact video. Do you see how odd that is?

2. On a related note, is it really your position that Daniel Bonevac has never heard of the idea that a word can be misused? Your presentation suggests that you figured out he's wrong because you know that words can be misused -- he must not know that, or he would have realized he's wrong.

You could actually take this as a kind of argument: if just knowing that a word could be misused would prevent Bonevac from being so obviously wrong, and since presumably like everyone he does know this, maybe he's not obviously wrong, and whatever point he's making is not refuted just by knowing that a word can be misused; maybe I should think about this some more.

This is something like the principle of charity. (You can google that.)

Bonus point:

3. I'm not trying to discourage you from saying what you really think, or suggesting you pretend to accept things you don't. There's nothing wrong with expecting something to make sense to you before you accept it. Ask for reasons. Ask for arguments and evidence.

But whatever you happen to think about something at any given moment isn't by definition (see what I did there?) a position the rest of the world is required to accept or refute. It's just a starting point. The goal is greater understanding, not being right or wrong immediately. It might seem hard to square this kind of humility with standards that aspire to objectivity, but it can be done.

You don't understand Wittgenstein, like, at all. — Srap Tasmaner

Possible, very possible. Perhaps you can help me. What is a language game, a family resemblance, form of life, etc.?

Go ahead then, define "chair" — Srap Tasmaner

I wouldn't, at this moment, touch that even with a 10-foot pole. However, everything has a beginning and so so do words. If one has the time and the resources and spend them researching the origin of words, that first instance a word was used is where the essence of that word will be found. The family resemblance between things referred to by that word has its roots there - the entire family tree of that word branches out from thereon.

Give us an example of a word being misused — Srap Tasmaner

Is it that hard? If I use the word "chair" to refer to an elephant? Isn't that misuse, a word applied to the wrong object? :chin:

On a related note, is it really your position that Daniel Bonevac has never heard of the idea that a word can be misused? — Srap Tasmaner

Good question. He does make a mention of the possibility that words could be, well, misused but that doesn't square with his belief that the word "chair" is undefinable.

maybe I should think about this some more. — Srap Tasmaner

I hope you do.

"I" there isn't me.

"I" there isn't me. — Srap Tasmaner

I see. I also see you haven't answered any of my questions on Wittgenstein's philosphy. Perhaps you were too busy. Let me ask you again. What does Wittgenstein mean by language game, family resemblance, and form of life?

What are your expectations for a definition? I’m asking, because personally I don’t see an issue with defining a chair as something along the lines of “an object or piece of furniture whose function is to provide seating; usually for one person.” I don’t see the need to be so specific to define the number of legs, material used, size, shape, color, etc. We have specific types of chairs that can give you more specific information, if that’s what you need.

What are your expectations for a definition? I’m asking, because personally I don’t see an issue with defining a chair as something along the lines of “an object or piece of furniture whose function is to provide seating; usually for one person.” I don’t see the need to be so specific to define the number of legs, material used, size, shape, color, etc. We have specific types of chairs that can give you more specific information, if that’s what you need. — Pinprick

Misusing words i.e. applying them to objects that don't satisfy definitions and not applying them to objects that do fuflill definitions results in confusion and confusion, I believe, is the bane of all philosophers.

Sure. Is there something confusing about the definition I provided? I’m not sure I’m seeing the relevance of your response...

Responses from the Community headed your way:

1. You don't understand Wittgenstein, like, at all. — Srap Tasmaner

etc.....

Thank you for this post. It gave me real joy to read it.

What is an object? Beyond physical and nonphysical (ie. a literary plot device), an object generally has a purpose or function. Which is usually either strict utility (ie. a pocketknife) or aesthetic (like an ornament or work of art). These days one usually incorporates some of the other.

Perhaps... an object that does not function in a utilitarian sense is simply not said object. Yet. A tiny replica 1-inch chair say for a model home is still a chair. It can't be used as one, yet we aesthetically see it is and so would call it a chair. Interesting thread, OP. At least, the questions I've been able to gather from it.

Sure. Is there something confusing about the definition I provided? I’m not sure I’m seeing the relevance of your response... — Pinprick

As it stands, the word "chair" is applied to various objects but what's missing is a unifying essence in these objects and that's bound to lead to confusion, no?

“an object or piece of furniture whose function is to provide seating; usually for one person.” — Pinprick

Too broad, a stool satisfies your definition.

However, at this juncture, I feel the necessity to bring into the discussion the notion of misuse, germane to the issue of definitions as occasions when a word like "chair" is inappropriately applied to objects. If we follow Daniel Bonevac's logic, and I'm sure he's not alone in this, there's no such thing as misuse of words, there is never an error in applying words to objects - every single time a word is used, it's always used correctly. Preposterous!? — TheMadFool

You read some Plato, skipped ahead to Aquinas, and then just stopped, didn't you?

I'll take a shot at this in terms you might accept.

You are too focused on the instance of "chair" when you are really talking about the category of "language". Your analysis fails to appreciate that language has a purpose. It was created by sapient animals to communicate and allow for some level of cooperation. It is not absolute, and is an entirely artificial agreement reality. Therefore "chair" does not exist in any real way. Only when we attempt to communicate something to another person do we use the tool of language to indicate a thing that we think that other person will most likely recognize as a "chair". Therefore, there is no misuse, only miscommunication. In other words, every time a word is used, it is neither correct nor incorrect, it is merely effective or ineffective.

You may attempt to go down the rabbit hole of how we form these abstractions in our minds and whether they correlate to something "real", but that's all superfluous to the thing you seem to have a problem with here.

Side note: you should probably leave Wittgenstein out of this. Especially if you're going to try to refute him with "chair".

Too broad, a couch satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Well we're being a bit one-dimensional at this point. You know what a chair is.

"A piece of furniture typically designed for seating a single individual usually accompanied by a backrest and/or armrests."

But it begs the question. Does an object get it's properties from the creator of the object or those who observe it? You could sit atop a parking meter if you'd like. That doesn't make it a chair. Does it? Basically, the broad definition of "something you sit on" doesn't quite hold up. Think the above definition is the most widely accepted one.

A chair without backrests or armrests is just a stool is it not? Which is a type of chair... yes?

A chair that seats two or three qualifies either as a bench or loveseat or full-blown sofa if wide enough, and depending on cushioning/upholstery. Right?

Therefore, there is no misuse, only miscommunication. In other words, every time a word is used, it is neither correct nor incorrect, it is merely effective or ineffective. — Pro Hominem

The goat has an amplitude of red thoughts. What's wrong with the preceding sentence?

Think the above definition is the most [u[widely accepted[/u] one. — Outlander

There's the problem and you recgonize it but only, it seems, subconsciously."Widely accepted" meaning misses the mark in philosophy or so I hear. This kind of freedom in word usage inevitably plonks everyone outside the gates of confusion, no?

The goat has an amplitude of red thoughts. What's wrong with the preceding sentence? — TheMadFool

Nothing. Why?

Nothing. Why? — Pro Hominem

:rofl: So goats have amplitudes and thoughts are red?

Perhaps a more familiar example will clarify it for you: colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

There's the problem and you recgonize it but only, it seems, subconsciously."Widely accepted" meaning misses the mark in philosophy or so I hear. This kind of freedom in word usage inevitably plonks everyone outside the gates of confusion, no? — TheMadFool

No. Again, this is the fact-value dichotomy at work. "Widely accepted" is exactly the standard to apply in ordinary language. It is precisely what language is for.

In these sentences, you shift your meaning from language use in general to language as used by those attempting to "do" philosophy. You a making a fallacious substitution there.

To engage in philosophy, participants must take extra care to define terms for the purposes of the particular discussion they are having. Once they've agreed upon these definitions, they can proceed because the targets are not moving as much. This is why so many conversations on a board like this just end up in arguments about the meaning of words.

Words have no meaning except what we give them. That meaning can change over time, intentionally or organically. Philosophy requires that meanings be fixed and agreed upon so discussion can be more precise. None of this approaches the question of "wrongness" in words, which is an appeal to an absolute that does not exist.

I also see you haven't answered any of my questions on Wittgenstein's philosphy. — TheMadFool

And I'm not going to. And anyone who does would be wasting their time.

There is nothing I could say about Wittgenstein or any other philosopher or any philosophical theory, and nothing anyone else could say about any of those things, that could or should carry more weight than the facts that words in natural languages mostly don't have clear definitions but can be used correctly or incorrectly.

This you are prepared to deny, but you might change your mind based on, of all things, my presentation of Wittgenstein?

Nothing. Why?
— Pro Hominem

:rofl: So goats have amplitudes and thoughts are red?

Perhaps a more familiar example will clarify it for you: colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — TheMadFool

What's wrong with these words?

"’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

There is a world of difference between "explain it to me like I'm five", which is good, healthy for all involved, an excellent check on obscurantism, etc., and "argue with me like I'm five."

As we say in Georgia, "That dog won't hunt."

As it stands, the word "chair" is applied to various objects but what's missing is a unifying essence in these objects and that's bound to lead to confusion, no? — TheMadFool

The essence is it’s function, or at least it could be, but yes, the lack of an essence could lead to confusion, or relativity; such is the case with “beauty” and other relative terms.

Too broad, a stool satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Couldn’t a stool be considered a type of chair?

No. Again, this is the fact-value dichotomy at work. "Widely accepted" is exactly the standard to apply in ordinary language. It is precisely what language is for. — Pro Hominem

Yes, but only, as you agree, in "ordinary" language but language is a bona fide philosophical subject and we bring the tools of philsophy to bear on "ordinary" language we realize how clumsily people have been using this extraordinary tool we possess.

In these sentences, you shift your meaning from language use in general to language as used by those attempting to "do" philosophy. — Pro Hominem

Well, as I said, people haven't been using language well and that's what philosophers like Wittgenstein have discovered but for some unknown reason they've drawn the incorrect conclusion that words lack essences.

None of this approaches the question of "wrongness" — Pro Hominem

Are you saying we can use any word at any time, at any place, in any context, without raising an eyebrow or two? In effect you're claiming there is no wrong usage of words. Can I call you a chimpanzee then?

There is a world of difference between "explain it to me like I'm five", which is good, healthy for all involved, an excellent check on obscurantism, etc., and "argue with me like I'm five."

As we say in Georgia, "That dog won't hunt." — Srap Tasmaner

If you haven't noticed, you still haven't answered a few simple questions on Wittgenstein.

since no essence is discernible from usage, that "chair" is undefinable. — TheMadFool

Hmm. It seems to me that essence is a characteristic of individuals, not of universals, the characteristic of universals being abstraction, in itself a thing that isn't. Of things that aren't, you certainly can have, and some of them quite useful, including definitions.

If you haven't noticed — TheMadFool

You know that I've noticed. I flat out refused.

What do you make of that refusal and the reasons I've given for it?

If we follow Daniel Bonevac's logic, and I'm sure he's not alone in this, there's no such thing as misuse of words, there is never an error in applying words to objects - every single time a word is used, it's always used correctly. — TheMadFool

I don't think he actually says this, and this is the conclusion to his logic only if you assume that to misuse a word is to fail to satisfy an essential definition. It seems to me rather that to misuse a word is to use it in some way unconventionally. If you want to apply Wittgenstein in the "chair" case then this could mean something like: not used according to the family resemblances that we can see in the word's conventional uses.

Yes, but only, as you agree, in "ordinary" language but language is a bona fide philosophical subject and we bring the tools of philsophy to bear on "ordinary" language we realize how clumsily people have been using this extraordinary tool we possess. — TheMadFool

You are living proof of such clumsiness (laziness?). Now you're conflating "degree of accuracy needed" with "wrongness".

Different applications of any tool will have different tolerances. To quote Adam Savage, "every tool's a hammer."

If one is describing shapes they "see" in cloud formations, the margin for error is enormous. If one is drawing up blueprints to produce precision parts for scientific instruments, the tolerance is very small. It all comes back to purpose. Different applications require different levels of precision.

I will reiterate that nowhere in any of this is there a need for this notion of absolute meaning ("essence") you want words to have. They just don't, and beyond that, they shouldn't.

He does make a mention of the possibility that words could be, well, misused but that doesn't square with his belief that the word "chair" is undefinable. — TheMadFool

Not really. It can be recognisable yet undefinable. That is to say: I know a chair when I see one; so if you show me an elephant and tell me it's a chair, I can call that a misuse of the term and still not be able to define a chair perfectly.

The only thing that all chairs have in common is that we call them all "chairs".

Misuse of words, — TheMadFool

He talks about this at around 20:20. Did you notice? His response is to ask how you know that "chair" is being misused. If you can say all that you know, you ought be able to say when you know the word has been misused. But to know when it has been misused is just to know it's definition.

So rephrasing in terms of misuse doesn't seem to help.

Srap points out, with excruciating politeness, that you have misunderstood some of what was said in the video. I wonder, since you ask about Wittgenstein's ideas, have you say and examined the first fifty pages of Philosophical Investigations yourself? It might be of use.

Srap points out, with excruciating politeness, that you have misunderstood some of what was said in the video. — Banno

Did I? I didn't mean to. I had watched exactly none of the video last time I posted in this thread.

I did eventually watch the first several minutes, but I flinched every time he said "educating our children to be virtuous" and gave up.