No. IME, "dictionaries and definitions" are sometimes useful, at best, but not significant for doing philosophy.

... the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms — Alkis Piskas

Herein lies the problem. Philosophers often use terms in idiosyncratic ways and in ways that are no longer standard. This is not a reason to reject dictionaries but a reason to be cautious about the dictionaries being used. When reading philosophy a glossary of terms related to particular philosophers and schools will be more helpful than a general dictionary. In addition, a definition may be a good starting point, but one must look at the context in which the term is being used rather than insisting that a philosopher means X because this is how the term is defined somewhere.

You cannot navigate without some kind of reference, point, line, star, compass reading, lighthouse, mountaintop, whatever. Definitions, then, at some point, essential. Even if as just a point of departure. If I talk about "Man," for example, do you know what is meant? What I mean? You do not, unless I tell you. Then at least we're on shared ground with shared understanding. Definitions, then, a starting point - and to be sure sometimes a concluding point. But without at least a decent start there can be no good finish.

1) How did they get to know about the meaning of words and esp. terms and even more esp. of abstract ideas (concepts) in the first place? — Alkis Piskas

Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary. Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition. Then look up the definition of each of those words. 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.

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. We do not need to be able to give the definition in order to use the word. A babe understands the meaning of "Mom" but cannot provide a definition.

These two arguments derive from J. L. Austin, who amongst philosophers is more associated with dictionary use than any other. He did not advocate using dictionary definitions as an ending, but as a beginning, as the place to start in order to understand how a group of words function and how they relate to each other. They provide us not with answers, but with more questions.

There will be amongst us those who hold that there is such a thing as the meaning of a word; and that any worthwhile theory of language must set out, preferably in an algorithmic fashion, how that meaning is to be determined. There will be others, amongst whom I count myself, who think

Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony. — Willard Van Orman Quine, SEP

Much of philosophy consists in working through the way words function. Beginning with a definition is in such cases petītiō principiī.

Is there a process that can be used to achieve, perhaps asymptotically, the goal of ensuring that you and I agree as to the meaning of some utterance? I've consistently argued that there is not a single thing that might be called the meaning of an utterance, but instead we should look at what is being done with the utterance. Hence, if there is not a thing that is the meaning of an utterance, there cannot be a method that will help us work towards understanding what that meaning is. Even using a dictionary.

But there are ways to achieve agreement, cooperation, or even progress. Chief amongst these we might place the Principle of Charity, which says that you and I and old Fred over there have pretty much the same beliefs. That is, while there are a few statements on which we will disagree, overwhelmingly we agree as to the position of the chairs in the room, the state of the weather, the agreeable nature of vanilla ice cream, and so on. Now Old Fred might be a raving, unmasked flat earther, but despite this he and you and I will agree as to what is the case far more often than we will disagree.

While you may be right about the impracticalities involved, we have little choice but to make charitable assumptions about those with whom we chat. The alternative is to deny any form of agreement, and hence any form of conversation.

Anyways, the above is cobbled together from posts of mine spanning three or four years.

How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms (with all their variations depending on context ) or if they have their own, personal, different definitions/meanings according to their own views and reality?
One can always of course describe one's own definition/meaning of a term --nothing bad about it-- but at least they should make that clear if that definition/meaning departs from the standard, common, agreed upon definition and meaning. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

I am going to answer this question, or pair of related questions, without recourse to a dictionary, by way, in part, of illustrating that communication is possible without recourse to dictionaries. Indeed it must necessarily be the case that the meanings of words were already established and communicated before the first dictionary was created to record them. My answer will also give an answer in passing to your first question.

Fortunately, language has a large measure of redundancy, such that even if *unreadable splodge*, the meaning can very often be discerned quite easily. This means that an unfamiliar word can be guessed at from its context, and by triangulation with another occurrence in another context, a fairly clear idea can be obtained as to the meaning. And this method of providing uses in context is very often part of a good dictionary entry.

Because "meaning is use". Now a dictionary uses words, to define each word, and one has to understand the words in the definition to grasp the meaning of the word in question. So there is always more work to be done if one is sufficiently insistent, until as must happen, one finds that the dictionary itself loops around and the definitions become circular. At which point one has have recourse to familiarity with the language as used informally anyway. One does not learn to talk in the first place at least, from a dictionary, but from social interaction.

None of this is to denigrate dictionaries, they are fun and useful in equal measure. And if you want to reference one now and then, it can sometimes circumvent a deal of wrangling in philosophical discussion. But in my experience, it is the little common words like "I" and "is" and "thing", and "meaning" that no one defines or bothers to look up, that cause all the big philosophical problems, and here is exactly where a dictionary definition is no help at all.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/tbt-clinton-grand-jury-testimony/index.html

Mind you, if you want to really disappear down a rabbit hole of definitional circularity, I can recommend the classic text, The Meaning of Meaning. by Ogden and Richards, They find about 16 different uses of the term "meaning" by reputable philosophers, and discount a few more as illegitimate - as in 'the meaning of life', for example. I mean, why be satisfied with dictionary.com, when you can have a book length discussion of a word?

When we participate in meaningful communication we enter a dimension that we do not control at will. Language functions as a social law, kinda. For there to be understanding between two people they must share a language that they both understand (and the rules, uses, semantics and sintaxis of those languages are learned and not actively generated by the participants). There is no communication if each participant has a private language, as Wittgenstein would say.

Dictionaries are the written form of social law (digitally written for digital philosophers :) ). It functions as a "third" between two communication participants, and as a "fourth" if there are three participants. If some type of understanding is expected between the participants, it is always necessary to resort to the common law. Sometimes this law is embodied in dictionaries.

Thanks for your reply to the topic, Fooloso4.

Philosophers often use terms in idiosyncratic ways and in ways that are no longer standard. — Fooloso4

This might be the case, but in these cases they describe, explain and even give the definition of the meaning of these terms. I mean, if they do care about readers or listeners undestand what they say. I included this case in my description of the topic, and said "nothing bad about it". (I could even stress the point more, by saying "this is perfectly OK".) But from my experience a lot of them don't. Once I was disappointed by Bernardo Kastrup in an interview who started saying "Everything is in consciousness and exists only insofar as it is in consciousness." He never revealed his meaning of "consciousness". Not any example, whatsoever. What then can the listener get from that? How can one undestand this claim, position, thesis or whatever. One could either assume that BK uses the term "consciousness" with its "common", "standard" meaning --which, esp. for this term, there isn't one-- or use one's own definition/meaning of the term --which also could lead to a dead end. Isn't that right?

The main problem in these cases, the reason why this "phenomenon" --unfortunately too frequent-- is that people assume that you know and undestand exactly what you are talking about and what you and know the meaning of the terms as they undestand them. This is also a common mistake school and university teachers do. They assume that you know what they are talking about. And in a lot of cases, they don't even allow questions. This is the main reason people develop a huge amount of misconceptions in their education and vocabulary knowledge, in general.

To explain what a term means (for you) when you first use it, in teaching, lecturing, writing, etc. takes a few seconds and its value is invaluable.

This is not a reason to reject dictionaries but a reason to be cautious about the dictionaries being used. — Fooloso4

I fully agree with that. I myself often mention cases where a definition is incomplete and, even worse, ne."circular", which is a common phenomenon. But even in this case, one can use them as basis for a more complete or modified definition. A problem arises esp. when a definition contains "additives" as I call them. The second definition in the example of the term "sensation" in relation to perception that I brought up, shows exactly that: mind state and feelings are not involved in mere perception. See, such things can make a proposition, thesis, etc. "successful" (plausible, well-grounded, etc.) or failed or even nonsensical.

When reading philosophy a glossary of terms related to particular philosophers and schools will be more helpful than a general dictionary. — Fooloso4

I totally agree within this too. But how many times --if ever-- have you seen such a thing in action?

In addition, a definition may be a good starting point, but one must look at the context in which the term is being used rather than insisting that a philosopher means X because this is how the term is defined somewhere. — Fooloso4

Certainly. But in most cases a term has a basic, main meaning --which is applied to most cases-- and then it can also have secondary meanings. And one should mention or make clear which meaning one uses.

The problem is always the same: lack of definitions.

Thanks again, for your insightful comments!

Thanks for replying to the topic.

Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary. Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition ... — Banno

This is the perfect, absolute way one would use if one wants to become "superliterate". But this is rarily the case, isn't it? :smile: Also, we have the context in which a term is used, so we can "filter" the definitions based on that. (Which is what we normally do, and the dictionaries helps as in that by giving us the area of appication in parentheses --e.g. in Philosopy or (Phil.)-- or as part of the definition.

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 ... — Banno

What is the image that comes to your mind when I say "tree"? If it's a shrub or a shrub and an actual tree (based on the basic, common definition of theword), then you should look it up. :grin:
(Which I don't believe is the case.)

A babe understands the meaning of "Mom" but cannot provide a definition. — Banno

If it could, I would like to adopt it! I would pay whatever amount of money! :grin:

These two arguments derive from J. L. Austin, who amongst philosophers is more associated with dictionary use than any other. ... — Banno

Quite interesting. Thanks for this ref. I would read more about him and his work. Has a quite intelligent face and a large forfront.
(BTW, as you may have undestood --together with other people-- I am a linguist too.)

There will be amongst us those who hold that there is such a thing as the meaning of a word; and that any worthwhile theory of language must set out, preferably in an algorithmic fashion, how that meaning is to be determined. — Banno

I rose to tha bait with the term "algorithmic" --being a professional programmer-- and it gives me the opportunity to say something quite pertinent to the topic: In most programming languages, in order that you can use a variable, it is required that you first define it. And not only that, sometimes you must also specify its type: integer, string, etc. That is, its context.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use this parallelism. :smile:

There will be others, amongst whom I count myself, who think "Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony." — Banno

I like that. It's an ideal situation. It certainly offers a ground for solid undestanding. But can you bet on it?

Much of philosophy consists in working through the way words function. Beginning with a definition is in such cases petītiō principiī. — Banno

I don't quite undesstand why. I could only think that it acts as a spoiler, depriving of of the fun and pleasure to discover what it is all about youself! :grin:

Is there a process that can be used to achieve, perhaps asymptotically, the goal of ensuring that you and I agree as to the meaning of some utterance? — Banno

Well, as I already said in this thread, the best way to achieve undestanding is via a definition: from a disctionary or one's own definition. This creates a common undestanding of the term one part uses, indepentent;ly of whether the other part aggrees to it or not. The important thing is for the other part to undestand well what you are talking about. Isn't that right?

I've consistently argued that there is not a single thing that might be called the meaning of an utterance, but instead we should look at what is being done with the utterance. Hence, if there is not a thing that is the meaning of an utterance, there cannot be a method that will help us work towards understanding what that meaning is. Even using a dictionary. — Banno

Well. at this point of reading your message, I should like to note that I expected at least a practical example from you. I should have mentioned about this element in my description of the topic, because I consider it very important, in fact a solvent, a digestive for theory and concepts.
(It's not for nothing that most dictionaries --here they are again!-- give at least one example for each meaning of a word.)
But at least I gave an example, thus demonstrating in practice the importance and need for this element, which arises in a lot of cases, esp. when the talk is too theoretical or conceptual or not very clear or one cares and needs that others do undestand what you are talking about.

But there are ways to achieve agreement, cooperation, or even progress. Chief amongst these we might place the Principle of Charity, which says that you and I and old Fred over there have pretty much the same beliefs. — Banno

This is true. It is a special case in which one know what the other talks about without the other having to explain anything. Yet, don't forget that either there has been a time at start when they have agreed upon some principles, definitions/nmeanings otf terms, thus establishing an agreement on them. Or if I join a group with established principles, beliefs, etc. and have accept them, I have likewise established a similar agreement.

While you may be right about the impracticalities involved, we have little choice but to make charitable assumptions about those with whom we chat. The alternative is to deny any form of agreement, and hence any form of conversation. — Banno

There's certainly no need for that! :smile:

Thanks again for your contribution to the topic.

Thanks for your reply to the topic.

even if *unreadable splodge*, the meaning can very often be discerned quite easily. This means that an unfamiliar word can be guessed at from its context, and by triangulation with another occurrence in another context, a fairly clear idea can be obtained as to the meaning. And this method of providing uses in context is very often part of a good dictionary entry. — unenlightened

Whys would I do I have to read a whole page or I don't not how much text in order to get the meaning of the word. Your example was very good because I heve absolutely no idea what "splodge" means!
(I can also give you a dozen of similar cases, of course.)
In the days before Internet, one had to look for words/terms in a dictionary, and maybe there wasn't one near. So, one had to strive and struggle with the text to get the meanings of words in the way you are proposing. And then this could easily lead to misunderstanding of the text and even confusion. But these days, this process is at the tips of the fingers and takes only a few seconds. Moreover, what you are saying underestimates all dictionaries and maybe renders them useless.

So, honestly, I can't see how you can consider this way of undestanding a text better or even just useful.
Otherwise, I accept yout method as an alternative.

Because "meaning is use". [/quote]
Well, I would rather say "understanding is use" ...

Now a dictionary uses words, to define each word, and one has to understand the words in the definition to grasp the meaning of the word in question. So there is always more work to be done if one is sufficiently insistent, until as must happen, one finds that the dictionary itself loops around and the definitions become circular.[/quote]
As I said to @Banno earlier, on does not need to do that. In fact, if that were the case I would be myself one who hates dictionaries! Fortunately, in 99% of the cases, the process stops on the first look up. But this of course requires that one uses dictionaries on a regular basis, which results in a lesser and lesser need to clear words with time.

BTW. this is I believe one of the reasons a lot of people dislike and even hate dictionaries. As a lot of students hate and are bad in Math at school. Because they mised the opportunity to undestand the materials and follow the course since its beginning. And with time, the process of "catching up" with Math gets harder and harder. Obviously.

None of this is to denigrate dictionaries, they are fun and useful in equal measure.[/quote]
It's good at least that you find them fun. (I ignore the word "useful" here, because you have just rejected them earlier, in favor of a method "without the use of dictionaries") . At least, you don't hate them. That;s good. :smile:
But I don't think that people have created hundreds of dictionaries --dating back to the antiquity-- just for fun, as a pastime. Do you?

But in my experience, it is the little common words like "I" and "is" and "thing", and "meaning" that no one defines or bothers to look up, that cause all the big philosophical problems, and here is exactly where a dictionary definition is no help at all.[/quote]
I believe there's some truth in that.

Mind you, if you want to really disappear down a rabbit hole of definitional circularity, I can recommend the classic text, The Meaning of Meaning. by Ogden and Richards,[/quote]
This is a very known circularity. It's like the known pseudo-paradox "I am lying". These are intended cases of cicrularity. :smile:

There are too many fallacies of definition to rely on dictionaries. For instance, they sometimes use in the definition itself the word to be defined or a close synonym of it. Definitions are tautological, circular, either too broad or too narrow, the argumentum ad dictionarium, and so on.

Dictionaries are descriptive. The authors of dictionaries only attempt to record accepted usage of terms at any given time, at least according to them, so there is the inevitable difference in definitions between dictionaries, between editions, all of which is subject to the biases and faults of their authors. As such, it only has benefit as a reference, not as some definitive account of definition or meaning.

Dictionaries are one kind of effort at providing a framework of and standard for understanding. Surely that is necessary? Even if the definitions are incomplete, they can serve to mediate disagreements of meaning. And if some definitions are misleading or circular, this may often be due to tendencies of thought (biases) that will simply utilize the same faulty reasoning generating its own meanings. Whatever flaws are attributed to the assembly of a public lexicon can affect the assembly of a personal lexicon.

Thank you for responding to the topic.

There are too many fallacies of definition to rely on dictionaries. For instance, they sometimes use in the definition itself the word to be defined or a close synonym of it. Definitions are tautological, circular, either too broad or too narrow, the argumentum ad dictionarium, and so on. — NOS4A2

Of course dictionaries sometimes contain ineffective definitions. But it is obvious that one is not bound or supposed to take up such definitions. But this is rarely the case. In the great majority of the cases they do just fine. I know that well because I use them on a regular basis. And I'm not bound to a single dictionary. I consult others two simultaneously for a term. You see they all have something to say. And in most cases they give the basic meaning of a term or word. So, next time you fin a "fallacious" (as you say) definition in a dictionary kust look in another one. Thare dozens of standard and good dictionaries in the Web. And this is a great oppotunity we have these days because we couldn't do it in the pre-Internet times!

We all know that there are a lot of inaccurate and even fake news in the Web. This does not mean that we stop reading news, esp. from standard sources. like NewYork Times, CNN, BBC, etc.

The authors of dictionaries only attempt to record accepted usage of terms at any given time, at least according to them ... — NOS4A2

This is a fortunate fact that they give accepted meanings of words. And they don't to that offhand. If you saw the film "You The Professor and the Madman", which tells the story of how the first Oxford English Dictionary was compiled. It had about 6,500 pages and it took about 10 years to complete.

Can you imagine what would happen if disctionaries were compiled by authors based on what "according to them" were the correct definitions?
I personally shiver to the idea ...

Therefore, we can't just use the term "sensation" or "feeling" without specifying what we exactly we mean by that. Isn't that right? Well, this is what actually happens in these discussions. And of course, the conversation between two interlocutors goes in circles and reaches a dead end. — Alkis Piskas

The issue is that English is a rootless language, a halfbreed of Dutch and French.

In any other language I do not see the issue of "But what do you mean by X?" popping up nearly as often as in English. People in a given country (mostly) went to the same school system, belong to the same culture, so why so much trouble with communication?

An English speaker may use the word "microbe" but when asked to define it will fumble (inb4 you go look it up to reply to me). Does that include viruses? Spores? What about tartigrades or ant eggs? A Greek person however will have no issues telling you what micróvio means.

If you go very basic, English speakers will have a decently clear idea of what "befriend" means, and then what "friendly" means, even if the latter does not imply the concept of friend. But being that English's vocabulary beyond the bare basics consists of the complete mutilation of French — which is already a bit of a mutilation of Latin — nobody knows what they are even saying when they say "civilisation", "conceive", "peace".

To address the quoted segment, any Latin person will tell you what sensatione- means, even if it is not easy to explain, just like its root verb sentir(e). While Anglos and Anglas and Anglxs think that man can mean woman and woman can mean man. How can you trust this language to do philosophy and rhetoric if it can't even define two of the most basic concepts of human society?

Thanks for your reply to the topic. And welcome to TPF! :cheer:

The issue is that English is a rootless language, a halfbreed of Dutch and French. In any other language I do not see the issue of "But what do you mean by X?" popping up nearly as often as in English. — Lionino

Good point. I will take up this later ...

People in a given country (mostly) went to the same school system, belong to the same culture, so why so much trouble with communication? — Lionino

This is a very plausible question.

A Greek person however will have no issues telling you what micróvio means. — Lionino

Ah! You got ahead of what I have in mind to talk about! :smile:

To address the quoted segment, any Latin person will tell you what sensatione- means, even if it is not easy to explain, just like its root verb sentir(e). — Lionino

Well, OK, we can also look at the Latin root of the word "sensation", but in our case, we are dealing with a technical term or with a word as applied to a specific context. So, if we are talking e.g. about "perception" we have to use definitions that apply to and are commonly used in that subject.

How can you trust this language to do philosophy and rhetoric if it can't even define two of the most basic concepts of human society? — Lionino

Good point, too.
That's where dictionaries and encyclopedias --I forgot to include them in my topic!-- come into play.

***
A note regarding what I promised to talk about at start. And you have "touched" yourself.
Right, it's about the Greek language, esp. ancient Greek. Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. But this, as I mentioned above, is good for us only in the general sense of the words. When these are applied to a specific context, esp. when this context is technical (scientific, philosophic, etc.)

BTW, you seem to be involved in linguistics, like myself. Are you also Greek or of Greek origin?
(In your profile, you have stated "Atlantis" as your location. It's a great place! I have also lived there, but about 10,000 years ago ... )

I don't really understand the opposition to dictionary use. There are times when it's really useful, especially when there are several different senses of a word and people are talking at cross-purposes. It's a reference resource that can help resolve misunderstanding, one hopes. Or if someone says "You're using a word in a weird way" a dictionary can be consulted to check common usage. This sort of thing. No one is saying dictionaries are a final source or arbiter of meaning, indeed lexicographers describe usage, it's not prescriptive. And sometimes in philosophy technical terms develop that may not be well represented in dictionaries, and they are not helpful then.

How did they get to know about the meaning of words and esp. terms and even more esp. of abstract ideas (concepts) in the first place? — Alkis Piskas

A definition is a good first step to understanding a word, but that doesn't make it authoritative or necessary to go back to.

2) How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms — Alkis Piskas

Language precedes dictionaries, one learns by hearing how a word is used. Word use defines the standard, common, agreed-upon meaning of terms, not dictionaries, which merely attempt to record those meanings.

Words, especially in philosophy, are far too important to hand over to anyone. One has to come to understand them on their terms. The majority of philosophical debates are about words, their meaning, and how they should be applied. To pull out a dictionary in such a case be harshly criticised.

Therefore, we can't just use the term "sensation" or "feeling" without specifying what we exactly we mean by that. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

I'm afraid I have to disagree. In everyday speech, we use context to understand words, rather than relying on definitions. Of course, miscommunication is unavoidable, and because of that, any set of rules will provide us with examples of miscommunication.

In my opinion, the reason discussions in philosophy in particular are so abundant with miscommunication is due to the broad context. Philosophy involves very high-level topics and is rarely limited to a comprehensible context. Normally, one would talk of "a sensation" or "a feeling" and the topic would be that sensation or feeling, so it's easy to follow along, even if the word isn't precise.

This OP is a perfect example of having a broad context, the topic is of definitions and the use of dictionaries in philosophy. That's a gigantic topic. One could see the topic and interpret it in a completely different way than you intended. The mismatch in how different parties understand the context leads to difficulties, which is the problem, rather than inappropriate word use. That's my take anyway.

The primary goal of any philosophical discussion is to be in agreement on clearly defined concepts, or definitions. A dictionary is a fantastic way to start, because it forces the conversation into something that can apply to the language of the user outside of these forums. I've often stated that defining a word too far from the norm is a logical fallacy. Generally its done by people who want the normal emotion evoked from the word, but don't like the logical consequences of the original meaning, so twist it into something they want. We all do it to a degree, its the reason why that can tell us whether its in the wrong or not.

While a dictionary is a great place to start, sometimes the philosophical discussion is about the word itself. Meaning that the current definition has something lacking. If so, the person who wants to change the definition should give a very clear alternative definition, and also why they think it is necessary and enhances the word. This should be the very first step in any philosophical discussion, and oftentimes discussions boil down to whether a person accepts this new definition or not.

That being said, anyone who gives you flak for daring to use a dictionary should be red flagged in your mind. Anyone who resists clear definitions is likely a charlatan who will continue to twist and retwist the meaning any time you think you get a handle on it and it points to a contradiction. Discussing with people like this can be a waste of time, so be careful.

This is different from discussing from someone who is trying to get a clear definition. Such a person will appreciate the dictionary reference, but point out where it lacks, and propose an alternative. Often times this alternative has not been fully explored either, and can gain solid identification through the act of discussion. Arguably, this is the entire goal and purpose of philosophy. Read the intent of the person to see if the discussion is about discovery or "I want to be right and use this word no matter what the underlying definition is".

2) How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms (with all their variations depending on context ) or if they have their own, personal, different definitions/meanings according to their own views and reality?
One can always of course describe one's own definition/meaning of a term --nothing bad about it-- but at least they should make that clear if that definition/meaning departs from the standard, common, agreed upon definition and meaning. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

That being said, anyone who gives you flak for daring to use a dictionary should be red flagged in your mind. Anyone who resists clear definitions is likely a charlatan who will continue to twist and retwist the meaning any time you think you get a handle on it and it points to a contradiction. Discussing with people like this can be a waste of time, so be careful. — Philosophim

These explanations are why we have something called a lexicon. In any given body of knowledge, population, community, and language in general, there is the lexicon that we abide by, naturally and automatically.

Philosophy has its own lexicon that's different from politics, for example. When the political news refer to the "world", they mean the countries that make up the human population.

Just because this is a public forum that welcomes everyone, it doesn't mean we can just join and start a conversation using an entirely new lexicon that is personalized to our own desires. We can challenge everything you say that's outside the lexicon of philosophy (unless of course, you want to talk about films, or music, or fiction, or any popular reads).

That said, a dictionary is created by the lexicographers, so using it in the philosophical discussion is a reasonable means.

Thank you for responding to the topic.

A definition is a good first step to understanding a word, but that doesn't make it authoritative or necessary to go back to. — Judaka

Of course not. I talked about that (multiple times).

Language precedes dictionaries, one learns by hearing how a word is used. — Judaka

Yes, this is normally the case. When children don't undestand a word, they ask their parents and rely on their answers to get wiser. ... "What does "xxx" mean pa?". They are lucky if "pa" 1) is willing to answer their question, 2) knows well the meaning of the word, 3) can describe it to the child well and in an easily undestandable way etc. On the other hand, there are parents who refer their children (after a certain age) to a dictionary. This is quite clever, for the reasons given above and more.

The majority of philosophical debates are about words, their meaning, and how they should be applied. — Judaka

Although I don't have many examples of this. I have though a lot of examples for the opposite, people assuming that the audience or the other parts of a discussion know what terms --even concepts and key words in a discussion-- mean. I talked about this too, in this thread.
But tell it to the people in here who don't care about

To pull out a dictionary in such a case be harshly criticised. — Judaka

Well, what about givind a definition the meaning of a term --maybe in obe's own words or with some modifications-- without mentioning the dictionary? Would that change anything in essence? Would that be criticised?
Most probably not, I suppose. Therefore, isn't the fact of bringing up a dictionary of secondary importance?

Of course, miscommunication is unavoidable, and because of that, any set of rules will provide us with examples of miscommunication. — Judaka

Good. Fortunately you brought up the hot issue I was talking about.

This OP is a perfect example of having a broad context, the topic is of definitions and the use of dictionaries in philosophy. That's a gigantic topic. — Judaka

Well, you maybe see more to it even than myself, who have created and talked about it! :smile:

The mismatch in how different parties understand the context leads to difficulties, which is the problem, rather than inappropriate word use. That's my take anyway. — Judaka

That's a good take! :smile:

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

These explanations are why we have something called a lexicon. In any given body of knowledge, population, community, and language in general, there is the lexicon that we abide by, naturally and automatically. — L'éléphant

Right.

Philosophy has its own lexicon that's different from politics, for example. — L'éléphant

Do you refer to a particular lexicon, like a specialized dictionary or encyclopedia --e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.-- or a personal vocabulary, based on their own personal meanings of terms?
If it's the first case, what Philosophy lexicon are you using?

Just because this is a public forum that welcomes everyone, it doesn't mean we can just join and start a conversation using an entirely new lexicon that is personalized to our own desires. — L'éléphant

At risk of not having got this right, I fully agree. :smile:

That said, a dictionary is created by the lexicographers, so using it in the philosophical discussion is a reasonable means. — L'éléphant

Right. That including also --or even mostly-- the specialized lexicons (to use your generic term) on Philosophy I mentioned above.

Well, what about givind a definition the meaning of a term --maybe in obe's own words or with some modifications-- without mentioning the dictionary? — Alkis Piskas

The act of defining one's terms will perhaps be criticised, it depends on the term, how it's being defined, the reasoning behind it and the people involved. Let's say I defined capitalism as "People selling stuff for money". Most wouldn't accept or allow that. It'd just seem like I'm redefining out of ignorance.

If I defined "sensation" to be synonymous with feeling, that might not sit right with many as well, as they'd view my definition as being simply incorrect.

For my part, I rarely accept others' defining terms however they want, there needs to be a good argument for it. It depends though. If the term is important to the discussion or not.

Therefore, isn't the fact of bringing up a dictionary of secondary importance? — Alkis Piskas

If alternatively rather than defining capitalism as I did previously, I wrote a paragraph or two describing it, would that still qualify as a definition? A problem with most definitions is that they're overly simplistic and there's no argument for them. A dictionary is just the worst because the definition is a few short words or a sentence with no argument attached.

Definitions are sometimes used in complex situations to "get back to basics' or simplify/resolve a situation, and that can be an inappropriate response. It's important not to assume that a disagreement is a miscommunication or ignorance about a word. The disagreement could be philosophical and those differing views represent themselves in the differences in how each party understands a word.

Negative reactions to defining a term are likely to do with the circumstances, attitude and manner in which a word was defined. What giving the definition aimed to do and it was expected to be received. As opposed to people just despising attempts at clarity. Philosophy will generally only be participated in by a proficient speaker of the language the discussion is using. It's not unreasonable to expect or assume that others wouldn't require one to define terms.

Nonetheless, a gigantic topic with examples and counterexamples in every direction. there's no simple conclusion.

One last point I'd mention is that the giving of definitions, in my experience, leads to tangents in discussions. If you stop me now and ask "Okay, but how are you defining "definitions"? I"m noticing some differences in how we use the term". Instead of bringing clarity, because this mightn't be an easy issue to resolve, it could take up much more focus than intended. The topic of the discussion may just become "What is a definition" instead of what we had been discussing originally. Hence I hesitate to give or request definitions. In such cases, the better approach might be to cease using that word.

Most won't let others define words however they want, which is fair, words are public and personal. It may sometimes be wiser to just literally write the definition instead of the word. Alternatively, create a new term and then you're free to define it however you want. If I think definitions are necessarily short, and you think they can be any length, I could try to say "short-definitions" aren't helpful but "long-definitions" are okay. Though some wouldn't even accept that.

Judaka, I think I undestood your concerns. You are referring to a kind of "constant" use of definitions in a discussion, writing or speech. And your points make sense.
However, I have talked about basic, key terms in a duscussion. And that one must know what the person who is using them means with them, when this is obviously not evident. And that this can be done either by directly defining/describing the terns, or explaining them in a broader frame, giving examples, etc. Anything, except letting terms and concepts fly in the air or covered with a veil that prevents them from being seen clearly or even at all.

You can well define "capitalism" as "People selling stuff for money", if this is what capitalism means to you. If you get cricised for it, that would be a mistake.
And. if instead of giving a definition, you explain your views about capitalism by describing it in a broader scope, etc., I consider it even better. But nothing prevents you from doing both, isn't it? :smile:

As for the "simplistic" definitions, I'm responding with a cliche: "truth is always simple". And I definitely believe it. When one looks for the essence of something, its description is always simple.

Well, OK, we can also look at the Latin root of the word "sensation", but in our case, we are dealing with a technical term or with a word as applied to a specific context. — Alkis Piskas

The word applied technically has to come first from common language, as we know sensation is not a scientifically coined term. We have two options: either take the meaning as it is in common language (useless for English as "sensation" can mean anything — semantic vagueness), or define precisely the word — semantic neologism.

And if the word is not precisely defined in a given field, might as well throw it out or finally define it.

But my point is more that Latins knows what sensatione- means because they know what sentir(e) means. How could they not? Sentir(e) literally means "feel", and being used so often, they would know when it applies and when it does not. English does not have that privilege in the case of "sensation", but it pretty much does in the case of "friendly" (analogy).

Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. — Alkis Piskas

I would say not only the etymology, but also the relation to other words (analogy, which ultimately comes from etymology), and also the sound the word makes, and perhaps even other factors I have not thought of.

OBS: analogy here means as here. TLDR: analogy of female of waiter being waitress, like female of emperor being empress (French words).

Are you also Greek or of Greek origin? — Alkis Piskas

I am not but I have Greek people close to me in my life, big fan of tzatziki. The Atlantis is just a placeholder as I don't live in my native country and I would rather not have people think I am actually Thatplacestanian.

The word applied technically has to come first from common language, as we know sensation is not a scientifically coined term. — Lionino

"Sensation" is mainly a widely used scientific term, as it refers to the senses, a mental condition and physical feeling, all of which are used in the science of biology, physiology, medicine, pshycology..

We have two options: either take the meaning as it is in common language (useless for English as "sensation" can mean anything — semantic vagueness), or define precisely the word — semantic neologism. — Lionino

The words "sensation" and "sense" in English come from the Latin "sensus" (= sensation, feeling, meaning). So, we are travelling back to Latin grounds that you like to talk about. :smile:

Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. — Alkis Piskas
I would say not only the etymology, but also the relation to other words (analogy, which ultimately comes from etymology), and also the sound the word makes, and perhaps even other factors I have not thought of. — Lionino

Right, this too.

I don't live in my native country and I would rather not have people think I am actually Thatplacestanian. — Lionino

I personally couldn't think you are a ... Thatplace...what? :grin:

The words "sensation" and "sense" in English come from the Latin "sensus" (= sensation, feeling, meaning). So, we are travelling back to Latin grounds that you like to talk about. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

You see, the English word sensation (sen-say-shon) comes from the Proto-Indo-European *snt-ie/o-, cognate with the Lithuanian sintéti and Old Irish sét.

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation, as does half of English, we see that in the suffix '-tion', which is particularly French, not Latin or Spanish.

Singling out Latin in that process from PIE *snt-ie/o- to modern English sensation is pretending that English has Roman roots which it has 0 of. Particularly, I am yet to see a single culture that is more opposite to Romanness than English, I see more similarities even with Ethiopians (who are Orthodox and Axum an important trade partner of Romans).

English is a halfbreed of Northwest Germanic (Frisian-like) with Nordic contamination and Old French (often Norman) with Celtic substrate. Latin does not come into the equation just like Arabic and German (hochdeutsch) do not.

I personally couldn't think you are a ... Thatplace...what? :grin: — Alkis Piskas

The country I am currently located in.

You cannot navigate without some kind of reference, point, line, star, compass reading, lighthouse, mountaintop, whatever. Definitions, then, at some point, essential. — tim wood

We are not bound by the already existing definitions created by others. We can use existing definitions, we can modify existing definitions, or we can create new definitions. A (the?) primary goal of philosophical discourse is to deepen understanding, not define it.

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation, as does half of English, we see that in the suffix '-tion', which is particularly French, not Latin or Spanish. — Lionino

The following is from https://www.etymonline.com/word/sensation
sensation (n.)
1610s, "a reaction to external stimulation of the sense organs," from French sensation (14c.) and directly from Medieval Latin sensationem (nominative sensatio) "perception," from Late Latin sensatus "endowed with sense, sensible," from Latin sensus "feeling" (see sense (n.)).

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation — Lionino

French is a Latin language.

I suspect that anyone unable to tell me what they mean by the terms they use does not know what they are talking about.

This is the perfect, absolute way one would use if one wants to become "superliterate". — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps you missed the pivotal point. One cannot learn one's first language from a dictionary. Therefore there is a way of understanding the meanings of words that is not found in their lexical definitions.

Hence there is a sense of "meaning" that is not found in a dictionary.

Wittgenstein characterised this as the way we use words.

It would be an error, then, to think that dictionaries provide the whole of meaning.

Hence, giving some sort of primacy to dictionary definitions would be placing a covert restriction on our use of words.

Hence starting a philosophical thread by stipulating definitions stifles thinking.

And again, doing philosophy very often - if not always - consists in working through the meanings of the terms involved. If dictionaries gave the whole of the meaning of our lexicon, there might be no philosophical disagreements.