• Cartesian trigger-puppets
    221
    As philosophers, or as people with philosophical ambitions, we should be more concerned with the linguistic and conceptual problems that vagueness and ambiguity impose on the information we transmit through our philosophical discourse. Vagueness and ambiguity affect our ability to evaluate the meaning of the information contained in a sentence or a word, thus rendering it logically impossible to determine the truth-value of any statement thereby expressed. To be clear, a statement is the meaning intended by any sentence which is capable of being true or false. A sentence is simply the linguistic vehicle through which a statement is expressed. Multiple sentences may express the same statement (“Every man is a mortal” and “All men are mortal” are different sentences that express the same thing). Moreover, a sentence may allow for multiple statements to be plausibly expressed (“The organ is not working” the word “organ” can denote either a body part or a musical instrument).

    Sentences which allow for more than one known and reasonable interpretation of its meaning are ambiguous. This is because the information contained by the sentence is capable of conveying more than one distinct meaning, and thus is capable of expression more than one distinct statement. If the sentence “John is at the bank” can mean either that John is at the edge of a river, or that John is at a financial institution, then there is no way to distinguish whether or not the sentence expresses a true or false statement. This may seem trivial in the example, but it is crucial for the application of logic. Since we apply logic to guide our moral, legal, and political decisions in every day life, it follows, then, that our accuracy in the application of logic is very important indeed.

    In order for us to accurately apply logic, we must therefore learn how to disambiguate the informational content and structures of our sentences so that they only allow for the expression of one truth bearing statement. However, before we learn how to disambiguate the information we intend to transmit through a sentence, it is important to understand how to distinguish between information which has ambiguity from information which has vagueness.

    Information which has ambiguity occurs whenever the meaning of a word, phrase, or sentence has several interpretations as a result of not being explicitly defined (“Right to bear arms” the word “Right” may denote “correctness” or “Something which cannot be infringed upon” and the phrase “Bear arms” may denote “The limbs of an animal” or “To acquire weapons”). Information which has vagueness, on the other hand, occurs whenever the meaning of a predicate cannot be precisely defined because, though it may clearly apply to the majority of cases, it cannot however be clearly applied to border line cases, thus making it difficult to form any interpretation with a high level of specificity (“That is a big rock” the word “big” is successfully applied in practical use, but it is not clear where to draw the line where objects are no longer big without a relative frame of reference).

    It should be noted that semantic ambiguity occurs when an expression has multiple senses when uttered out of context. There are several subtypes of semantic ambiguity, one of which occurs at the word level and is called lexical ambiguity. Lexical ambiguity is ambiguity which offers a choice between multiple known and meaningful interpretations of a word or phrase depending on context of its usage (the word “bank” is an example of lexical ambiguity with multiple distinct lexical definitions, such as “financial institution” and “rivers edge”).

    However, there are semantic ambiguities which are much more difficult to detect than lexical ambiguities (when a word form corresponds to more than one meaning). For example, the sentence “The moon is lighter than the raven” has lexical ambiguity stemming from the word “light” (describing either weight or color), which is much easier to detect than say syntactic ambiguities. Syntactic ambiguities, such as in the sentence “I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope” are much harder to detect or determine the meaning of. This is because the constituents of the sentence, though all may be individually understood semantically, are syntactically structured in such a way that understanding their pragmatic meaning is problematic because it is not clear what exactly the sentence means. Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street? As you can see, it is quite possible for the information contained in the sentence to be interpreted in many different ways, thus expressing many distinct statements, which could subsequently undermine the successful communication of information.

    This is an issue commonly observed in casual language users when people, often undisciplined to use precision of language, presuppose that others share the meaning of the language they use. This is why people of this sort spend time arguing about which flavor of ice cream is the best. They usually aren’t aware of the vagueness imposed on the term “best” or that it is utterly dependent upon the taste preferences relative to an individual. If they did it would be clear that each argument is correct if framed subjectively and predicated relative to the individual who the statements is indexed to. However, in their ignorance of such vague application of the predicate, they use it in an objective manner which makes no sense whatsoever (if we define “subjective” as the dependence of a mind, and “objective” otherwise as the independence of a mind).

    In the philosophy forum, we should expect to observe two things regarding vagueness and ambiguity. First, a far more extensive, interdisciplinary vocabulary as compared to common language users by virtue of the scope and breadth of philosophy upon all domains of research. Second, an intense concern for how we apply logic consistently as we use language which accurately represents the information we intend to communicate in our legal, political, and ethical discourse, as well as a disciplined, systematic approach to minimize our dependence of interpretation regarding the information we encode into signals which we subsequently transmit via linguistic messaging insofar as the abstracted meanings allowed of such messages, once the signals are received and information is decoded, is of limited variation, if not precisely defined.

    Precisely defined means that the terms we use are not vague to the point of obfuscation, nor are they ambiguous to the point of equivocation. This means that if one intends to encode information onto a linguistic vehicle in the form the sentence “Numbers are real” that one makes sure to define terms such as “numbers” and “real”. This is important because if we define “numbers” as abstract entities which act as variables representing a quantity, and define “real” by conventional standards as that which is true, which subsequently is defined as that which comports to the state of affairs, we then realize that the actual truth value of the statement is a function of the way the world is (according to correspondence theories of truth). In other words, it is a description of the nature of reality — of that which exists in the world, not as a mere being, as such can be fictitious entities, but rather as a thing the truth of which is obtained by its very existence in the world.

    Therefore, the sentence “Numbers are real” expresses a statement which makes a claim about the nature of reality. In philosophy, such claims are metaphysical, and so the truth value of such a statement refers to the metaphysical concept of “truth”. However, if the statement was framed a little differently, so as to claim “I know that numbers are real” then the issue becomes whether or not the subject knows the truth value of a statement making a metaphysical claim, and thus it becomes a claim about the nature of knowledge rather than of reality. As such, the sentence would be considered a statement referring to the epistemological concept of “truth”. Sentences expressing statements which make a claim about what is true are metaphysical, whereas sentences expressing statements making claims about what one knows is true are epistemological.

    These are just a few examples of how philosophical discourse has both an increased complexity, thus increased proclivity towards ambiguity and vagueness, and an increased need for the disambiguation of the semantic structure and content of words and sentences, the disequivocation of border line case predicates, and the intensification of meaning without a proliferation of redundancies.

    To review:

    The meaning of an undefined term is wholly dependent upon the interpretation of the reader. A bayesian approach would lead us to infer that terms are most likely to be interpreted in their most common usage. Admittedly, as members of the philosophy forum, we can presume a higher awareness of, not only the vagueness and ambiguity which plagues the communication of common language users, but also of the interdisciplinary specificity, and controversy in defining philosophically diverse terms. This in-itself, however, offers little aid for the meaningless use of undefined terms in philosophical discourse.

    In fact, if we don’t take the time to clarify our use of a term and employ it consistently throughout our discourse, then a higher awareness of vagueness, ambiguity, specificity, and generality of terms will only serve to further obfuscate the semantics of our discourse rather than provide any elucidation. With the realization of vague, ambiguous, discipline specific, generalized or otherwise controversially defined terms, we only increase the diversity, and thus the complexity of our meanings.

    To increase the semantic complexity of our discourse without proper clarification or specification of the terms therein, is analogous to increasing the terrain complexity of a geographical location, while providing no additional map to guide us through. How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions?

    In conclusion, since we can only share our meaning through the way we use a term, and better yet, if we provide a definition for key terms we are using in our discourse, then we, especially us engaged in philosophical discourse, must be more attentive to possible alternative interpretations, and be far more scrupulous in our efforts to minimize them.
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    Well written, can't say I came across anything disagreeable.

    Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street?Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Not sure if this is still "bayesian", admittedly I'm not familiar with the term, but context is key. Take the sentence in your example "I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope". What are we talking about? Was it some stranger who just walks up to me and blurts that out? Or were we discussing our shared interest in astronomy or perhaps living in an age of heliocentric prosecution? Depending on the answer, the context becomes quite clear, at least reasonable enough to assume.

    Every piece of knowledge we have was prefaced by a question we or someone before us once asked. Questions make the world go 'round. If you can't ask questions about a statement, it's safe to say the source knows far less than they attempt to present. Kinda like an intelligent bird that can "speak".

    How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions?Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least.

    Example, you know what you wrote and believe it to be coherent, as do I. That's well enough and much better even than if your post was about something like say, chocolate cake and it's gravitational affect on chickens, for example.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    My first take on your post is that this is a two-bladed knife.
    As Mario Bunge points out in his book "Philosophy in Crisis." and his 10 criticisms of contemporary academic philosophy, definitions are the weak link in the "philosophical" chain.
    Philosophers are either Obsessed with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems resulting to Insular Obscurity or they suffer from the Ivory Tower Syndrome(rejection any all inputs from outside experts or departments) resulting to using definitions that have nothing to do with the actual phenomenon.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    -" How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions? — Cartesian trigger-puppets


    Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least."


    -No it isn't sufficient.In all philosophical discussions the first thing the two sides should do is to present their definitions and reach an agreement.
    For my limited personal experience on concepts like consciousness, any meaningful conversation is impossible. Everyone holds a different definition that has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon and most of the times definitions are an existential claim on their own, not an actual description of what we are trying to explain.
    i.e. I have never met a single interlocutor interested on consciousness that has done his epistemology and is aware of the official scientific definition of the term. So this vague situation with definitions is a catalyst for Pseudo philosophy to parade as actual Philosophy.
    In my opinion most people use their definitions to describe their ontological presuppositions....not as a direct and accurate description of the phenomenon they are trying to explain.
  • Outlander
    2.1k


    Fair enough. Let's go beyond an example and see, explore the phenomenon as you say. What's your definition (and relevant examples) of what is and what is not consciousness and what is compatible if not identical and what is contradictory to my own. I'll start I suppose.

    What is consciousness:

    The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart and distinct from other beings able to distinguish some sense of time and therefore "life" or "reality (ie. past, present, future). With the personal stipulation of being organic. Not all agree will agree on that last part

    What is conscious:

    - A mentally unafflicted human person of reasonable age
    - Intelligent animals

    What is not conscious:

    - A highly intelligent AI system following currently non-existent and hypothetical coding that just so happens to perfectly mimic the human brain and its functions
    - A single celled organism such as amoeba
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Vagueness and ambiguity affect our ability to evaluate the meaning of the information contained in a sentence or a word, thus rendering it logically impossible to determine the truth-value of any statement thereby expressed.Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Problem

    Vagueness: Fuzziness of meaning [disagreement, no fallacy though]

    Ambiguity: Distinct multiple meanings [equivocation fallacy]

    Remedy

    Define your terms clearly [explicate which meaning you want to talk about for ambiguity and use precising definitions for vagueness]
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    definitions are the weak link in the "philosophical" chain.Nickolasgaspar

    :up:
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    I find your example really useful to explain my objections on how definitions are used.
    That said, I don't imply that your definitions are necessary wrong. I am only pointing out that a definition not only has to describe the phenomenon in question, but the descriptions also needs to be practical, meaning that it can not be shared by different phenomena.
    This is a quality that I might have forgotten to stress in my previous comments.

    So before I address your definition, I will post the current scientific definition on consciousness so that we can contrast yours or any other that might be shared in this thread.
    "Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex."
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
    I would also add, since this definition only addresses the area that enables this mental property, that the content in those conscious experience is provided through action of the Central Lateral Thalamus (the part responsible for connecting and introducing memory, symbolic language, reasoning, pattern recognition etc in our conscious states from other areas of the brain).
    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness

    So this is our current scientific understand that Mark Solmes includes in his latest Theory of Consciousness(Founder of Neuropsychoanalysi).(For those who are interested on the subject, since we are not going to discuss it anymore in here).

    Now before breaking down your definition I will ask for a clarification:
    You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
    Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature).
  • Wayfarer
    22.2k
    This is important because if we define “numbers” as abstract entities which act as variables representing a quantity, and define “real” by conventional standards as that which is true, which subsequently is defined as that which comports to the state of affairs, we then realize that the actual truth value of the statement is a function of the way the world is (according to correspondence theories of truth).Cartesian trigger-puppets

    'Real' may alternatively be understood as 'that which is' or 'what truly is'. It doesn't necessarily pertain only to propositions or statements, especially in this case, which is a discussion about the nature of something, namely, numbers.

    In philosophy, such claims are metaphysical...Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Indeed, and this particular claim is at the basis of the debate about mathematical realism, a.k.a. mathematical platonism, which, according to the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy article on that subject:

    has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to accommodate.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k


    -"Problem
    Vagueness: Fuzziness of meaning [disagreement, no fallacy though]"

    -I will be honest, I wasn't aware of it...I just searched it.
    https://www.fallacyfiles.org/vaguenes.html
    I intuitively use the term "fallacious argument from ....salad bar" on interlocutors who tend to use vague language.

    The points that makes yours is:
    -"The fallacy of Vagueness comes about when the appearance of cogency of an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms.
    The mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy, but it is sometimes a logical boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person to fall into fallacious reasoning."

    So again we are dealing with a slippery slope.
    Either way vagueness renders impossible the evaluation of an arguments as valid or sound. In my opinion its either an indication of dishonesty or inability of expression or fundamental lack of understanding of a concept. All three cases are reasons to reject vague definitions or arguments.
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
    Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature).
    Nickolasgaspar

    Or. Which does confusingly imply there's a state of non-consciousness compared to a consciousness that one must heh consciously "activate" whereas nature is just the simple tendency to with or without said intent. I suppose such wording leaves both bases covered.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Vagueness fallacy? If the term/word itself is vague, how could I be guilty of committing a fallacy? It's clearly not my fault.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    well I guess this is the job of any interlocutor ...to provide the most suitable and clear definition in his attempt to remove any vagueness from the term he uses.
    Recycling a vague definition and pretend it is adequate enough to start a conversation on it...that is an issue.
    I can only speak for my self but I always try to include empirical foundations in all my definitions on abstract concepts...as concrete as a definition of a chair.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    well I guess this is the job of any interlocutor ...to provide the most suitable and clear definition in his attempt to remove any vagueness from the term he uses.
    Recycling a vague definition and pretend it is adequate enough to start a conversation on it...that is an issue.
    I can only speak for my self but I always try to include empirical foundations in all my definitions on abstract concepts...as concrete as a definition of a chair
    Nickolasgaspar

    Come to think of, I think you're right, vagueness might lead to a verbal disputes. For example:

    Ken is tall & Ken is short [a contradiction but not actually since tallness & shortness are vague]
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    I always refer such discussions to Ogden and Richards. A look at chapter 6 will be most helpful in elucidating the scope and application of 'definition', a term that has not yet been defined in this thread.

    After a discussion of the definition of 'beauty', there is a review of the uses at that time made of the term 'meaning' in academia from philosophy to psychology and beyond. And at last chapter 9 produces the 16 main definitions (not counting slight variants) favoured by "reputable students of Meaning".

    Carry on from there until you have either decided you can manage without definitions, or died of despair.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    Define=explain what you mean by that word.
    Definition= your explanation on what you mean by that word.
    This is the only definition we need to start a conversation.
    Whether someone's explanation qualifies as meaningful ....this is what we are discussing here.
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    Define=explain what you mean by that word.Nickolasgaspar

    Explain what you mean by "mean".
  • frank
    15.6k


    :grin: I'm not sure what you mean by "explain."
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    I mean what he meant.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    if you explain the meaning of the term......cynicism
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    :100: Right on! Definition as navigational aid, not as destination. Meaning as destination.
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    if you explain the meaning of the term......cynicismNickolasgaspar

    As far as I can tell, 'cynicism' in this context is an accusation you are levelling at me, as a way of evading the obvious difficulty of actually following the project recommended in the op. But read the link and get back to me. It's a classic of modern philosophy, and I have it on my shelf.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    In the philosophy forum, we should expect to observe two things regarding vagueness and ambiguity. First, a far more extensive, interdisciplinary vocabulary as compared to common language users by virtue of the scope and breadth of philosophy upon all domains of research.Cartesian trigger-puppets

    This is exactly what we don't need. There is already too much gobbledegook jargon in philosophy. Every philosopher or aspirant to the throne wants to coin new words or change the meaning of old ones. This is at the heart of much of the ambiguity you are arguing against. To overstate the case a bit - if you can't say it in everyday language, you don't understand it. Jargon rarely clarifies.

    As for the rest... You could have laid out the problem in two paragraphs but you used 15. A lot of people didn't read it. You know - tl;dr. Using as few words as possible is just as important as using the right words. Your argument could have been a lot clearer, less ambiguous, if you'd made the post a lot shorter.

    TL;DR means "too long, didn't read."
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily.Outlander

    Agreed, but if you, as the original poster, define your terms carefully at the beginning, specify that that is the sense which will be used in the discussion, and then ride heard on the discussion to keep it on track, a lot of the problems many, many, many of the posts on this thread have could be greatly reduced. That is the responsibility of the original poster. If you don't do that, don't complain about it later.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    Νah...I don't think so.
    My remark was irrelevant to the OP. I will continue my discussion on it soon. You were asking definitions about the words I use and I just asked your definition about the nature of your questions.
  • Cartesian trigger-puppets
    221


    Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street?
    — Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Not sure if this is still "bayesian", admittedly I'm not familiar with the term, but context is key. Take the sentence in your example "I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope". What are we talking about? Was it some stranger who just walks up to me and blurts that out? Or were we discussing our shared interest in astronomy or perhaps living in an age of heliocentric prosecution? Depending on the answer, the context becomes quite clear, at least reasonable enough to assume.
    Outlander

    What I mean by a bayesian approach is simply my assigning a prior distribution of the overall probability that the meaning of a common term is likely to be understood based on my personal observation and the expert opinions of lexicographers. The example is meant to illustrate the problem with the syntax of a sentence out of a given context. Your response is appropriate in seeking clarification by requesting for additional context. This is my point. We need to do more of this.

    How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions?
    — Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least.
    Outlander

    I’m not suggesting a need for absolute meaning, or universal consensus, but rather to understand what it is you mean when you use a given term. For example, consider the term God. If you use such a term, then I will no doubt request clarification as to what it is you mean when you use it. If you respond by defining God as “A conscious and interacting being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent,” then I would express disbelief in the existence of such of being as the traits you have assigned to it are mutually incompatible and logically impossible to possess. On the other hand, if you define God as”Whatever force brought the universe and into being,” then I would be skeptical (I see no evidence suggesting the universe had a beginning, for all we know the Big Bang, if it did happen, could of been a mere event rather than a beginning) but neither hold a position affirming that such a God exists, or existed, is true, nor one denying it. Alternatively, however, if you define God simply in somewhat pantheistic terms as “The totality of the universe,” then I would of course agree with you that, by your definition, the existence of such a God is true.
  • Cartesian trigger-puppets
    221


    This is important because if we define “numbers” as abstract entities which act as variables representing a quantity, and define “real” by conventional standards as that which is true, which subsequently is defined as that which comports to the state of affairs, we then realize that the actual truth value of the statement is a function of the way the world is (according to correspondence theories of truth).
    — Cartesian trigger-puppets

    'Real' may alternatively be understood as 'that which is' or 'what truly is'. It doesn't necessarily pertain only to propositions or statements, especially in this case, which is a discussion about the nature of something, namely, numbers.
    Wayfarer

    I think that both ‘that which is’ or ‘what truly is' are examples of vagueness to the point of meaninglessness. They are of course metaphysical by virtue of the predicate “is” just as the predicate “is known” from “what is known” is of course epistemological. I am not making a claim that ‘Real’ pertains only to propositions or statements, but in the context of the OP we are concerned with the meanings of terms insofar as they can have logic applied to the statements containing them so that the truth value of the statement can be known. My example definitions of “that which is true,” “that which comports to the state of affairs,” and “the way the world is” does not seem to be limited to only pertain to propositions, at least to me. In the context of the paragraph we are focusing on a statement which contains the term ‘Real,’ however.

    I’m a bit confused, actually. In the paragraph, we are analyzing the statement “Numbers are real” breaking down and defining the constituent terms, and pointing out that the sentence expresses a statement which makes a metaphysical claim. I’m not using these terms as a pejorative or anything. I find metaphysics and the philosophy of mathematics interesting. I interpret you as making an objection. If so, could you clarify what it is?
  • Wayfarer
    22.2k
    . I’m not using these terms as a pejorative or anything. I find metaphysics and the philosophy of mathematics interesting. I interpret you as making an objection. If so, could you clarify what it is?Cartesian trigger-puppets

    I didn't take it as pejorative. Your prose is a model of clarity. Will reply later.
  • Cartesian trigger-puppets
    221


    In the philosophy forum, we should expect to observe two things regarding vagueness and ambiguity. First, a far more extensive, interdisciplinary vocabulary as compared to common language users by virtue of the scope and breadth of philosophy upon all domains of research.
    — Cartesian trigger-puppets

    This is exactly what we don't need. There is already too much gobbledegook jargon in philosophy. Every philosopher or aspirant to the throne wants to coin new words or change the meaning of old ones. This is at the heart of much of the ambiguity you are arguing against. To overstate the case a bit - if you can't say it in everyday language, you don't understand it. Jargon rarely clarifies.
    T Clark

    I never said that we ‘need’ it, in fact, I gave no evaluation for it at all. I merely said that we should expect to find it. I attempt to discuss philosophy with as little jargon as possible but using strictly everyday language means swapping out concise philosophical terms requires swapping in a long and elaborate essays describing the concise philosophical term as a thesis in everyday language. You can’t have it both ways. It’s either concise with maximal meanings packed into specialized philosophical terminology, or it is wordy by virtue of unpacking the meanings of specialized philosophical terms into broad definitions which only use language that is accessible to everyone.

    (A fair criticism if you are referring to my personal writing skills. Perhaps i should outline my post like an essay rather than just attempt to ramble in such a way that stays close to the topic)
  • Banno
    24.7k
    Agreeing on a use for our terms is the very stuff of philosophy.

    Beginning with definitions is expecting to start at the finish.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    I attempt to discuss philosophy with as little jargon as possible but using strictly everyday language means swapping out concise philosophical terms requires swapping in a long and elaborate essays describing the concise philosophical term as a thesis in everyday language. You can’t have it both ways.Cartesian trigger-puppets

    I don't agree. I, like you, try to use as little jargon as possible. When I do use if, I feel like I've failed. If I need to use language that most of us here won't be familiar with, it makes sense for me to spend a little time laying out the framework I am talking about. The "concise philosophical terms" you're talking about rarely mean the same thing to everyone in the discussion. You're going to have to define them anyway, at least here on the forum. I thought that was one of the things you are recommending.

    A fair criticism if you are referring to my personal writing skills.Cartesian trigger-puppets

    No, I wasn't criticizing your writing skills. You are very articulate.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.