Of course, the other way to write a dictionary is on historical principles; as an account of the development of the language over time.

But it's a big dictionary. — Banno

Cool. Nietzsche was an expert on that btw.

Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is examining the substance and details of a particular position. — Banno

Sometimes yes. Often no. As I noted, and you ignored, sometimes I want to look at a particular view of an issue and not talk about how others might define the issue. You often don't respect that desire. It is inconsiderate and unphilosophical. The solution is always simple, if you don't want to address the issues as laid out in the OP, go somewhere else. You seem to be unable to do that.

Like that, for a start. Setting out a definition in order to ground an argument is already taking a stance, which may itself be brought into question. — Banno

Any argument will have its grounding assumptions or premises. A premise that asserts that such and such is so will be based on a particular definition (usage) of the salient terms that constitute "such and such".

There can be no discussion if the interlocutor does not accept the definitions the propounder is working with. Would it not be better to discover such a situation at the outset rather than wasting time and energy on a "discussion" that was doomed from the start due to different definitions being held.

Bringing the definitions of the premises of an argument into question will potentially initiate another discussion with its own argument which has its own premises, and definitions of those premises, and so on. See the problem?

Alternately, how the question is framed often is the issue. Folk are prone to uncritical acceptance of a naive or pre-philosophical position.


It might help if you provide instances of such transgressions. But then again, that's off-topic. If you have complaints about my posts, the best approach is to let me know at the time, or pass them to the mods. Bitching about them, off-topic, in this thread is a bit shallow.

Any argument will have its grounding assumptions or premises. — Janus

Again, questioning those assumptions is basic to doing philosophy.

Excuse me for butting in folks...

It is inconsiderate and unphilosophical — T Clark

It might be inconsiderate, but it is not necessarily unphilosophical. Classically in philosophy, there is questioning the question. To do this might be to go against the wishes of the asker, who just wants a straight answer. It’s a refusal to abide by the terms of the debate as set out. But this is exactly what philosophy ought to do. The same goes for definitions.

You seem to be unable to do that. — T Clark

I see you’ve managed to personalize things again. This is a discussion about definitions, not the various personalities of TPF and how they behave. Some would say it’s inconsiderate of you to disrespect the topic in this way, in that you have failed to follow your own advice and “address the issues as laid out in the OP”. In this case I think it’s also unphilosophical. (I’m not asking you to stop it, by the way)

In one of your posts in reply to me a few pages ago, you appeared to interestingly combine this personalizing approach with something philosophical, or metaphilosophical. You suggested that the reason we saw the same situation differently was that we had different approaches to philosophy. I asked you how this played out, but you were not interested enough to answer, so that avenue fizzled out. Maybe this time it won’t (it’s the same issue).

how the question is framed often is the issue. Folk are prone to uncritical acceptance of a naive or pre-philosophical position. — Banno

:up:

Again, questioning those assumptions is basic to doing philosophy — Banno

Sure, and any questioning is always done on the basis of other assumptions, which are in turn open to question, and so on. So, int absence of empirical obsevables that might decide such issues, where does tha leave us? Just fun and games all the way down?

It’s a refusal to abide by the terms of the debate as set out. But this is exactly what philosophy ought to do. The same goes for definitions. — Jamal

That's true but doesn't augur well for discussion
between those who do not share basic assumptions or definitions.

For example say someone starts a discussion proposing to deal with how semiotics or phenome nology helps us understand the nature of consciousness and the human relation to the world. There would be little point in someone asserting that semiotics and phenomenology don't do either of those things, because that would just signal that no discussion is possible between those two interlocutors, at least so it seems to me.

a definition can be read as an argument that we ought to agree. — Isaac

Yes. Semantic norms. Appropriate and inappropriate use of a flag or siren.

For example say someone starts a discussion proposing to deal with how semiotics or phenome nology helps us understand the nature of consciousness and the human relation to the world. There would be little point in someone asserting that semiotics and phenomenology don't do either of those things, because that would just signal that no discussion is possible between those two interlocutors, at least so it seems to me. — Janus

Whereas definitions, if respected, would shut them out from the start.

So...

That's true but doesn't augur well for discussion between those who do not share basic assumptions or definitions. — Janus

But with the definitions and assumptions in place and an expectation that others abide by them, those who don't share them are not involved at all. To put it mildly, that's not always good.

...where does that leave us? — Janus

Presumably, and hopefully, doing some decent conceptual analysis. You know, philosophising.

It's a bit of a puzzle to me that folk do not understand this. The 40% who answered "I'm not OK with it" are in the wrong place.

On the other hand, what if someone wants to explore the meaning of Dasein and a hostile party butts in with, say, Adorno's excoriating analysis of Heidegger's abuse of language and celebration of irrationality? Would that be philosophical? I think the answer is at least sometimes no, so what's the difference here?

It might be inconsiderate, but it is not necessarily unphilosophical. Classically in philosophy, there is questioning the question. To do this might be to go against the wishes of the asker, who just wants a straight answer. It’s a refusal to abide by the terms of the debate as set out. But this is exactly what philosophy ought to do. The same goes for definitions. — Jamal

Baloney. If you don't want to play by the rules I set up in my OP, there are other threads to go too. My OPs always leave plenty of room for disagreements, but they focus on the issue I am interested in discussing. I don't start discussions offhandedly. I have a specific purpose in mind. Generally, it's because I don't understand something and want to examine it closer and I want help from you guys.

Some would say it’s inconsiderate of you to disrespect the topic in this way, in that you have failed to follow your own advice and “address the issues as laid out in the OP”. In this case I think it’s also unphilosophical. — Jamal

Baloney. I made a comment that was fully responsive to your OP. Then @Banno stuck his nose in in his usual smug, bullshit, lazy way. He pretends he's involved but he doesn't put any effort in.

Which is fine, but it pisses me off and I say so.

I see you’ve managed to personalize things again. — Jamal

In one of your posts in reply to me a few pages ago, you appeared to interestingly combine this personalizing approach — Jamal

This is very personal to me. I think I've made that clear throughout my six years here. Why would anyone participate if it weren't personal?

I asked you how this played out, but you were not interested enough to answer, so that avenue fizzled out. — Jamal

Remind me what I wrote that indicated I wasn't interested. Metaphysics and epistemology are at the center of who I am and how I see the world. Again - it's very personal to me.

Again - it's very personal to me — T Clark

So what? I don't think it means that because it's personal to you, the very fact that it's personal to you is all you need to talk about. There are the philosophical issues too. You often seem to forget that.

Baloney. If you don't want to play by the rules I set up in my OP, there are other threads to go too. My OPs always leave plenty of room for disagreements, but they focus on the issue I am interested in discussing. I don't start discussions offhandedly. I have a specific purpose in mind. Generally, it's because I don't understand something and want to examine it closer and I want help from you guys. — T Clark

This is what we're exploring here. It certainly doesn't help when you put people in boxes and assume, well, that's the way you are and I'm the way I am because I was an engineer and there's nothing to be done. It's irrational, anti-philosophical, trivial and distracting. And now I'm doing it too.

Then Banno stuck his nose in in his usual smug, bullshit, lazy way. He pretends he's involved but he doesn't put any effort in. — T Clark

Goodness.

Which of my replies to you has pissed you off so?

I don't think it means that because it's personal to you, the very fact that it's personal to you is all you need to talk about. — Jamal

You brought it up, not me.

There are the philosophical issues too. You often seem to forget that. — Jamal

I don't think that's true. Example please.

This is what we're exploring here. — Jamal

I was dealing with your OP in a straight ahead way. This is a discussion about whether or not definitions are needed in a philosophical discussion. How have I strayed from that? These are the posts that set this off:

Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is examining the substance and details of a particular position.
— Banno

Sometimes yes. Often no. As I noted, and you ignored, sometimes I want to look at a particular view of an issue and not talk about how others might define the issue. You often don't respect that desire. It is inconsiderate and unphilosophical. The solution is always simple, if you don't want to address the issues as laid out in the OP, go somewhere else. You seem to be unable to do that. — T Clark

It's right on the money. You and @banno apparently don't like the fact I think definitions are important. I'm making my case, which is completely in line with the question raised by the OP.

It's irrational, anti-philosophical, trivial and distracting. — Jamal

As I've noted, all my posts have been right on the subject of your OP. That's rational, philosophical, substantive, and responsive.

You brought it up, not me. — T Clark

No, it was you. You first personalized things when you started talking about my approach to philosophy, implying that it was tied down to particular philosophers and their works. In contrast, you described your own approach. As I say, this could have been interesting if you had actually explained how these different approaches played out in our different attitudes to definition, but you didn’t want to pursue that. It was enough for you to state your opinions and tell me that you cherish them for important personal reasons. Why should I care?

And now, you have become somewhat aggressive towards Banno for no good reason that I can see, other than your epic personal feud.

I don't think that's true. Example please. — T Clark

Just in this discussion you’ve done it with me (described above), and you’ve done it again with @Banno:

Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is examining the substance and details of a particular position. — Banno

Sometimes yes. Often no. As I noted, and you ignored, sometimes I want to look at a particular view of an issue and not talk about how others might define the issue. You often don't respect that desire. It is inconsiderate and unphilosophical. The solution is always simple, if you don't want to address the issues as laid out in the OP, go somewhere else. You seem to be unable to do that. — T Clark

Here, instead of tackling his point you end up talking about Banno himself, doing the old ad hominem. It genuinely seems to me that you literally do not want to discuss the topic: you think the way you think and that’s that. It is not right on the money, because it doesn’t address the point in a philosophical way. Try imagining someone who agrees with Banno but who you like: what would you say to them if they made the same point? The principle of charity is key.

I’ve seen it in other discussions. I think you can be forgiven for sometimes expressing your exasperation or personal animus when you find Banno’s approach significantly, shall we say, divergent from your own. It’s just not philosophy though. No further questions. I rest my case.

Taking a concept and analysing it is most of the work of philosophy.

Stipulating a definition and insisting that it not be questioned mitigates against such conceptual analysis.

I gather you disagree with one or both of these.

Is that so?

You and banno apparently don't like the fact I think definitions are important. — T Clark

This is not true. If you’d been paying attention to my posts (and that’s another thing) you’d see that I’m quite open to the idea that definitions are important, and I positively want people to disagree, including you. The thread’s title is just sensationalist.

But with the definitions and assumptions in place and an expectation that others abide by them, those who don't share them are not involved at all. To put it mildly, that's not always good. — Jamal

Do we ever see productive discussions between those who don't share definitions and assumptions?

In a discussion of phenomenology's relationship with post-structuralism, for example, would there be any value contributed by a participant who only wanted to argue that neither phenomenology nor post-structuralism can contribute anything of philosophical value?

Do we ever see productive discussions between those who don't share definitions and assumptions? — Janus

I think so, but maybe sometimes less for the primary interlocutors than for bystanders. Reading discussions over the years I’ve been happily struck by insights that amounted to rejections of the definitions.

In a discussion of phenomenology's relationship with post-structuralism, for example, would there be any value contributed by a participant who only wanted to argue that neither phenomenology nor post-structuralism can contribute anything of philosophical value? — Janus

Yeah, it might be a matter of degree or something. I was asking the same sort of question above:

On the other hand, what if someone wants to explore the meaning of Dasein and a hostile party butts in with, say, Adorno's excoriating analysis of Heidegger's abuse of language and celebration of irrationality? Would that be philosophical? I think the answer is at least sometimes no, so what's the difference here? — Jamal

Taking a concept and analysing it is most of the work of philosophy. — Banno

This is only true of philosophy as very narrowly conceived. I get that that is the only approach of personal interest to you, but what could you hope to achieve by butting into discussions based on other very different conceptions of philosophy?

SO the definition of Art that gave yesterday works by urging one to re-think what is involved in the concept of art. No doubt it has some impact when one comes across it embedded in its original context, but to my eye last night it seemed to be using too closed a notion of art; I was focused on the ritual that is involved in casting an incantation, comparing that with the ritual involved in performatives.

But overwhelmingly I agree that ".. it’s in the use of term that we can understand the meaning of concepts, not primarily by definitions", and indeed I've taken this further, suggesting elsewhere that the notion of a concept is a reification of the use of the term at issue; that all there is to a concept is the use of the associated words.

You and banno apparently don't like the fact I think definitions are important. — T Clark

It seems to me that you have entirely missed what was being argued.

Yes. Semantic norms. Appropriate and inappropriate use of a flag or siren. — plaque flag

Yes, indeed. What distinguishes, I think, a 'good' definition from a 'bad' one as a precursor to a discussion, is that the good definition is encouraging of debate. It says "we ought use the term this way and here's why". That can be disputed.

A bad definition, by contrast closes debate, it says "we will be using the definition this way, so don't point out any flaws in doing so"

In a discussion of phenomenology's relationship with post-structuralism, for example, would there be any value contributed by a participant who only wanted to argue that neither phenomenology nor post-structuralism can contribute anything of philosophical value? — Janus

It's hard to see what you could be meaning by 'value' here. Even if you wanted to gain a 'better' insight into phenomenology, or post-structuralism by your question, deciding in advance that 'better' only consists of answers which accept both traditions rather than question them indicates that you've already decided others are not as capable as you of determining what is and isn't the case, as such the enquiry seems disingenuous.

Had you said - "I only want to hear from qualified philosophy professors", you might be accused of being slightly elitist, but at least the restriction would make some kind of sense given an enquiring mind. But saying "I only want to hear from people who agree with me thus far" just assumes that you have the measure of what's right already, which renders further enquiry pointless. Just use whatever measure you've already used on your definitions, you seem happy with that.

Someone else who wants to make this thread all about me. :grin:

On the bright side, doing so should get us past 8 pages. :rofl:

A bad definition, by contrast closes debate, it says "we will be using the definition this way, so don't point out any flaws in doing so" — Isaac

A footnote, that doing this at the start of a specific argument is agreeable. "Here's what I mean, and this is what follows".

But overwhelmingly I agree that ".. it’s in the use of term that we can understand the meaning of concepts, not primarily by definitions", and indeed I've taken this further, suggesting elsewhere that the notion of a concept is a reification of the use of the term at issue; that all there is to a concept is the use of the associated words. — Banno

I realized you thought so and was worried it would come up, because I thought it wasn’t relevant, that I could conflate them without anyone noticing too much, and without affecting the debate.

But now it’s come up, it is interesting. Adorno and Hegel always complain about reification too, but for them it’s not the concepts as such that are to blame, but an overly rigid use of them. Maybe this amounts to the same thing.

But I came to that conclusion through consideration of Wittgenstein's meaning as use; the (meaning of the) concept is the way it is used. We check understanding of a concept by checking that it is used as expected.

One form of reification is thinking that some set of synonyms - the definition - can set out the whole of the use of a concept, as if it were setting it in bricks and mortar. Something like this perhaps sits behind the belief in the efficacy of definitions in settling a difference of opinion.

It's rarely that simple.

Well, I agree dammit.

But what I don’t think I’ve seen from you (could be wrong) is when in philosophy you think definitions are good. Is it possible to be specific here, even, dare I say, to offer some sort of definition?

For example, I’ll quote myself again:

On the other hand, what if someone wants to explore the meaning of Dasein and a hostile party butts in with, say, Adorno's excoriating analysis of Heidegger's abuse of language and celebration of irrationality? Would that be philosophical? I think the answer is at least sometimes no, so what's the difference here? — Jamal

Couldn’t we say that if the task is exegesis, it’s no good to reject the definition of Dasein given at the beginning, before we’ve explicated it?

EDIT: actually you did say that the definition of art I gave might be useful.