Doesn’t everyone stipulate the following according to the law of non-contradiction:

Male is different than not-Male, or Female.
Female is different than not-Female, or Male.

Same with, Man is different than Woman.

This is the only way we can think and speak about these things.

If the above is confusing to us, we will get nowhere in a discussion about gender and the further complexities of being a person.

If we can designate any particular thing or trait we want as “female” or “feminine” or “woman”, how on earth can we figure out what a trans thing is in distinction from those female things?

If we want to think and talk about these things, we need to first understand and keep clear how Man can never be not-Man or Woman, at the same time in the same manner. Only then can we look at what a person with a penis, pants and a girlfriend is best referred to as, versus what a person with a penis, dress and surgery to add bigger breasts is called, and what is different about these two persons and what is the same about them.

We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works.

I mean, we can reinvent uses of words and make new words to mean identify new distinctions, but then, some things are just impractical and defeat the purpose of speaking, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the things we meant all along the way. And we can reinvent ourselves and decide to chop off body parts and add others, but if we want to use terms to discuss what we are doing the chopped penises have to be “male/man” parts, and chopped mammaries have to be female.

I can’t start my sentence here with “I” and expect you to understand I mean me, and then end this same sentence where “I” now refers to you, or, who the hell is talking to whom here, about whom???

Gender is one of those practical things first. The differences between male and female and man and woman are simple, stark and obvious. The nuances and complexities of social constructions and culture may demand new words, but cannot defeat old meanings and uses, otherwise we are merely turning something simple, stark and obvious into something complex, ironically, all for the sake of disambiguating and clarification.

Right? It’s like a stairway, we may step off the first step, but that step can’t disappear on us or nothing will be supporting the second step we now stand on.

It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. If you can't do likewise, that's on you. Your argument is invalid. — Banno

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good?

If so then there is nothing good or bad necessarily involved in acts of faith qua acts of faith.

So your argument’s reliance on child murder is smoke.

You are avoiding.

You didn’t address the more substantive parts.

People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. — Fire Ologist

Therefore “belief based on insufficient evidence” happens everyday.

You admitted that. Doesn’t that mean your connection between faith acts and immoral behavior may just be correlated, but not causal? I think it does.

Acting without sufficient evidence is a good now. You said yourself you do it all of the time, and I’m sure with great success.

I've found we often must act despite not knowing the consequences. — Banno

That’s my point!

You sound like a man of faith now.

(And if you don’t know the consequences, you didn’t have sufficient evidence - same behavior - so you can’t avoid my point that way.)

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. — Fire Ologist

Apparently so might you:

I have not said otherwise. I've just pointed out that the opposite is also true, — Banno

So if both are true, we can’t use good acts or bad acts as some kind of measure of the faith those acts were based on.

So there is no reason to pause a decision and not to act just because that decision is based on faith.

And so bringing up heinous acts, or only heinous acts, or good acts or any acts is irrelevant and unhelpful when saying “what is faith.”

I think your whole disparagement of faith, your argument, is toast.

But such leaps of faith need to be mitigated by other considerations. — Banno

Mitigated leaps of faith. You must be a lot of fun at a party.

(Thought that was funny. I’m a nerd.)

Bottom line, I think you are too hard on faith and acting without sufficient evidence. Plenty of good and reasonable outcomes follow many acts of faith.

The basic premise:
Faith involves
1.) believing something despite insufficient evidence,
2.) and acting on said belief anyway.

And then there is 3.) “the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered.” -Banno

Believing without evidence is one thing.
Acting on said baseless belief is another thing.
Acting immorally because you believe things without evidence is a third thing (really a sub category of the second thing).

To start, I see your general point - believing something without good evidence is fraught with peril, and then acting on what is already perilous is reckless, and further, we’ve seen horrible atrocities committed based on such perilous recklessness.

But immorality is not always what happens in every act of faith, so there must be something else to “what is faith.” I’d say that, of the trillions of acts done by billions of believers acting on their faiths, the vast majority are not atrocities such that you or anyone must be skeptical of all acts of faith. Looking at the faith healers and terrorist martyrs is just a tiny narrow picture of actions driven by faith.

I mean, based on insufficient evidence, having only faith in God, people said “take me instead” to the Nazi that wanted to kill someone else, given their lives and saved others. People have turned their other cheek where others would seek vengeance. People have ministered to the sick hoping for miracles risking their lives where no one else would go. Faith builds comfort and hope to those mourning a lost loved one everyday. That isn’t as impactful as some terrorist?

I simply don’t see all acts of faith as bad.

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. I think many faith driven acts and the good outcomes hoped for that followed would not have happened without precisely that faith.

So my point here is, a decision to act based on faith in something despite insufficient evidence is not per se bad.

Here is a better way to make this same point.

Prong 1 of your premise: “believing something despite sufficient evidence.”

People do this all of the time outside of the context of religion.
People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. That is still the same thing as an act of faith. Such belief still involves faith because the person doesn’t have the evidence and didn’t use reason to form their belief. This is like when you trust someone giving you directions on the side of the road. You don’t know the person, you have no real reason to believe them, and you could get your own, better evidence, but instead, you believe their word and act, possibly driving off a cliff around the next corner.

So the very act of believing something without sufficient evidence needs to be further analyzed to determine its relative value, its practicality, its prevalence in daily decision-making, usefulness and predictability of outcome, etc. - basically there is no necessary connection between whatever reason you might have to forgo sufficient evidence and yet make a decision to believe and act anyway. In the moment, what could otherwise be a sufficiently evidenced decision, is instead more quickly made with insufficient evidence. So maybe you call it following your gut or intuition, and not faith, but either name here, there is a need and prevalence for all of us to act based on insufficient evidence all of the time.

So again we see that acting on insufficient evidence itself is not per se bad.

If all acting based on insufficient evidence is bad, we should probably not listen to what anyone else ever says.

Second point others are trying to make here is this, I never do anything based on insufficient evidence. I don’t follow Zeus, or Pan. I believe the words of a man who said great things, and the people around him who saw him do many impossible things. I have evidence. I get that I can’t hand you the proof of these things and allow us both to retest veracity, but like the person who gives me directions, when those directions make some sense, I believe them despite insufficient evidence.

Basically, you can’t just conclude that because you don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it is not there. I see it. I base my decisions and actions on what I see.

It is just not an accurate description of my thought process to call my acts of faith essentially always “based on insufficient evidence.” I see that evidence can be weak, but I also see that there are many decisions we make in our day where evidence will be weak, so the faith muscle needs to be exercised to become a good one.

Religious faith is trust in another person based on your evidence of who that person is. Faith is a gift (just like the other way we make decisions, reason, is a gift). Persons are wild cards - and require faith to know, believe and follow (act upon).

How does a person transition from one sex to another, say from male to female, without a prior clear, absolute conception of “male” and “female” they must start from?

How can you feel “My body doesn’t match my sense of self?” without some sort of assumption of what it is supposed to feel like to have any particular body and be any particular self?

There is essentialism, objectivity/biology/psychology, and normativity laced all throughout this modern question of gender. We should admit it.

My only policy issue here would have to do with children - let’s let children avoid this mess as long as possible. Let’s keep them out of wondering about this. Because kids just want to know where we are telling them they can go take a pee. It’s up to us to keep it that simple for them and protect their innocence of these questions. We don’t need to experiment with the psychology of all children for the sake of a few children. That’s irresponsible towards all of them.

But forgoing the policy discussion, I’d love to see if we could disambiguate any thing here on TPF. Gender probably should be an easy one.

We should all be able to admit as an objective fact what a male is and normally does with his body, and what a female is and normally does with hers. I think it is precisely because of what a normal woman looks like, acts like, wears, and has for body parts, that a trans man comes to seek some resolution by transitioning to a woman. He wants to be a she - both being clearly distinct to him.

So protecting a clear definition of male and female and man and woman, protects men, trans men, women and trans women. Without men and women first, you can never have trans men and trans women second; and you can’t have a trans man or trans woman first, because then there would be no discussion or thoughts of transitioning.

We need penises to be penises, vaginas to be vaginas, and bosoms to be bosoms first, for it to be any fun to play with all of these body parts.

So we can, and maybe should, admit this is the same as saying we need to protect men qua men sometimes and women qua women sometimes. And today, by protect, I mean disambiguate gender, so we don’t lose sight of men qua men and women qua women, and ruin the future possibility of anyone feeling comfortable in any body.

One step at a time. The designation of male/man and female/woman based on penis and vagina should be basic. The complexity can only be layered on top of that simplicity first. One step in the transition at a time. Solid understanding of “male” and bright line distinction from “female” has to be the first step.

↪Fire Ologist... — Banno

So do you agree I understand you or not?

You said: “ “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

And you said:

the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered. — Banno

So I clarified your statement about what faith involves as the following:

I said: Faith involves acting on belief, and that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

There are two large parts: belief despite insufficient evidence, and, acting on such belief, involved in faith.

Does my restatement show that I understand your premise? Or not?

Who me- my point?
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I critique it.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" — Fire Ologist

And nothing else I said misunderstood that premise, correct or not? Are we on the same page, talking with each other here or what?

Edit added.

My restatement made to show I understand: “Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.”

You agree?

Ok good, so we are just talking.

So you want to change "1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence" to "P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.” — Banno

I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

So the premise is: “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

I think “without sufficient evidence” is fairly close to “without empirical or rational justification” so that isn’t too difficult.

I think “faith involves” is somewhat different than “faith is” but it’s a distinction that isn’t really at the heart of this particular discussion. I think we can say “faith is or involves…” and not get hung up on definition versus faith uses/anecdotes.

But “acting on belief” - huge difference. And I like it better. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence.

So the act involved in faith is not merely believing without sufficient evidence. Believing isn’t the key act. Faith involves some other act, like leaping off a cliff, based on an unsubstantiated belief. Faith involves acting on belief, but that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

Is that the gist then?

1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence
Premise: Faith, particularly religious or blind faith, is often characterized by belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.
Banno frequently targets faith that forgoes critical evaluation, emphasizing that such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence or lack of evidence. — ChatGPT

This is a ton of content. Just to see if I can pass an entrance exam, can I re-write the premise summary to strengthen it bit:
“Faith is belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.”

Even the “or beyond” could be removed and we’d still get the basic gist.

And You/chatGPT add “such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence” but that sounds like a species of “belief without justification” so have I got the first premise right?

P1: “Faith is belief in something without empirical or rational justification.”

complain that there are too many atheists — Banno

I’m not angry or complaining.

I don't mind — Tom Storm

I think you do better than that. Not only do you not mind theists, you bring up God or religious faith yourself. Which is certainly fine with me, but it’s worth noting who is raising these subjects.

Quite honestly, (and that is the real issue - we need to trust each other), but quite honestly, I like my science straight, no ice, and no chaser. That’s the only kind of science there is.

I like philosophy as a blend of physics with the metaphysical/logical/linguistic. I don’t really like philosophy of religion, or shoehorning God into science. Science is specifically about using my own reason to judge everything for myself, so there is no desire in me to go beyond testable evidence when talking philosophy.

The expertise here on TPF is epistemology and logic (language/math) and metaphysics and mind, and anthropology and science generally, and theories of our shared, physical world.

Philosophic conversations particularly about mind and language often then bump into conceptualization and intention, and even immaterial substance, and then it completely crashes into God and the mystical One which is nothingness…and maybe we’ve all gone astray again.

I have no problem making the goal discussions of more falsifiable science here on TPF. We won’t nail this goal, because of the temptations of mind stuff and conceptual non-physical stuff, but “God” is almost always a stretch, a deus ex machina, in philosophy.

I’m good with that here on TPF.

Can’t avoid “God” in a “what is faith” thread, but then maybe this subject is tough for this forum.

Why would I be okay not discussing God so much on this forum?

Let’s say this thread is not what is faith, but what is my wife? “What is Fire’s wife?”

We could talk about her chemistry for hours, and and theorize about where the specific atoms that make up her body today were one billion years ago, and the path those atoms took, etc. We could spend hours talking about my wife and, never get to how she falls asleep on the couch most nights exhausted from taking care of everyone around her, and how she’s got a great sense of humor and is a people person, etc.

Here, on the forum, a conversation about the chemistry of my wife is, let’s say, less open to attack. But when I personally talk about God, like when I talk about my wife, I’d rather talk about the lived experiences, the particulars as I know them. That’s the good stuff in that topic, to me - the only really interesting stuff. Logic itself might seem trivial when discussing my wife’s habits. I am perfectly happy to admit that conversations like those, about God or my wife, are not philosophy, not scientific, and less fitting on this forum.

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out.
— Tom Storm — Banno

I am not angry. Just so you know.

Like many here, I have read and otherwise studied hundreds of thinkers.

I do believe there are answers (i believe this partly because of faith in what reason is).
I believe I have some of these answers, but not many. I believe there are many more answers to be had by reading more and listening to more people.

To me there is wisdom in Wittgenstein - the gaming that is human mental activity is an important insight worth studying.
And there is wisdom in Aristotle - just trying to say the law of non-contradiction out loud for the first time in history is someone to read - he was one of if not the the first expressly empirical scientist.
Like Descartes just stopping everything - left with nothing but, his existing.
Or Kant clarifying where the thing in itself lies.

None of these discussions need say “God” and I’m fine with that. Descartes best work was when he was alone, not fooled by any God be they evil or beneficial geniuses.

I will admit that sometimes I see people talking about God, and it sounds nothing like God to me, like chemistry sounds nothing like my wife, and because so many seem interested in posting “God” and “faith” as words/concepts, I can’t help but want to try and redirect things and stop the bleeding, but I only hope I don’t make matters worse.

Here is the problem:

But I find it difficult not to see many of their comments as disingenuous, in bad faith. — Banno

Scientists don’t seem to trust theists even when they are not talking about God.

Banno, is it possible you are a little biased against me?
Maybe I’m just not who you seem to think I am because of your own constructions and prejudices?

Not bad faith, but just, not enough experience of me to distinguish me from the biased sense of “theist” you see in your reading of my posts?

Does this post really seem disingenuous or in bad faith to you?

How about you, Tom? Don’t I seem like I am just speaking my mind? No anger. No reason to lash out or seek to judge the cause of decadence.

But in any event, I have said nothing in bad faith. Nothing in this post need be doubted for its sincerity.

I do believe “culture is debased and decadent.” Although I would say “adrift” and not “debased and decadent”, but I see a basic point in your words, and I have a skeptical view of what people do with their culture.

There is no reason, theists and atheists can’t discuss many things as equals - as individual thinking beings making their way sharing their views on anything.

If the opinion is “theists think they know it all and lash out at those who they say don’t know it all”, it is certainly one way to look at these things, but when I disagree, I hope you recognize that there is a whole person, just like you, acting in good faith, trusting your good faith, as I give you my opinion; we are vulnerable together in these conversations. That is because of trust. There is no bad faith over here. (That actually feels like an insult.)

Maybe I hurled some wise ass remarks myself, but no bad faith.

Saying “their comments are disingenuous, in bad faith” didn’t seem like a wise ass remark - just an honest judgement, probably against me.

So I respond - does anything I’ve said here, which is all from my heart, resonate with you?

If the answer is no, please explain because I don’t see how that is possible.

People who live in societies where such theists are trying to set the government agenda have good reason to be concerned with the thinking of such people. — wonderer1

Yeah, but not about those theist’s thoughts about God and religion - concerned about those people’s thoughts about policy, law and enforcement. We were talking about what is faith and God, not what lousy arguments might support bad public policy.

When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. — Tom Storm

Sounds like Leibniz or Spinoza too. Or maybe Malebranch, or Hegel’s absolute, or Berkley. Or Aristotle’s prime mover, or the Platonic “good” or Plotinus’ “the One.”

Personally I find most philosophers’ conceptions of God are hollow shells that barely outline any type of entity; or they are anthropomorphic wishful thinking, slapping a face and personality on something that did not ask for it, like “being” or “the one” or “necessity”.

My sense is, if it’s a question of God, it is a question of personhood, as there is no larger more encompassing thing in the universe besides the person (as far as as I have experienced thus far). The person contains all else in his ability to know. Therefore, for me, anything I might find that I would call “God” has to be able to talk with me in order for me to know it as God. Otherwise it might be just thunder, or the ground of being, or something else I could make lower than a person.

And if we seek God in the empirical reality of other persons, then it becomes a question of truth and love. These are where I find God - in another person’s truthful testimony of what they love. God emerges there.

Whenever you find God, you find God was already there. But you also find something new you didn’t expect as well. With God, there is always more than you expected.

The mystical traditions are better at speaking this way without sounding religious, but they don’t sound scientific either.

They're the ones who often call the worshippers of other faiths idolaters. They are rigid, — Tom Storm

they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

Lousy people to talk to about any religion, be it their own or the ones they rigidly belittle. Shake the dust off of your sandals when leaving those discussions.

Basically, who cares what they think? And yes I know people who sound that way - most of them, if pressed, realize they don’t understand their own faith let alone the faiths they belittle.

…in my humble opinion regarding this theological, so not philosophical, subject.

I've given you more consideration than your posts deserve. — Banno

Well then, on behalf of myself, and all those who muddle through my posts, thank you for that extra consideration you’ve given.

meh. — Banno

You’ve given us all back something to consider here that’s for sure. :rofl:

Astonishing.

the sort of psychological discrediting we see here between Leon and Fire. It's a way to not address the actual contents of the arguments presented. "Othering" atheists so that they can safely be ignored, and we don't have to give due consideration to what they say - perhaps. — Banno

Amazing. Just stunned.

The reference to psychology, to not addressing content, to “othering” (great word!). Truly stunned.

How could you say that and not see yourself?

That is exactly how I would describe what you try to do to me.

It’s like you were drawing a self-portrait.
For the others, like me and Leon. :lol:

——-

You’ve been over-duly considered, and I’d still consider you again, but I’d love to see some actual, humble, respectful consideration come my way.

Like I just gave Tom.

Or am I still too muddle-headed to tell you've already given me appropriate consideration, Banno?

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. — Tom Storm

I know plenty of atheists, even just around here - all individual people, with different strengths of conviction, strengths of their reasons and evidence. Love some of them dearly. Like others for just thinking of these questions.

I agree. “God cannot exist” is not the main thing atheists argue. It does paint the same world picture described more plainly as: “God does not exist.” But I agree, most atheist arguments don’t seek to preclude the very possibility of God.

But many do argue there is no meaningful talking about what God is without first verifying some sort of testable evidence that God is. And, to them, since there is no evidence that God is, no one can really talk about “God” at all.

Which makes sense (literally and figuratively) - with no evidence of some unknown thing, there is nothing to say about that unknown thing.

So in the end, maybe “God cannot exist” isn’t the best way to put it, but it seems pointless try to discuss God in any kind of meaningful detail if we cannot merely say what God is and whether this God is. We always end up stuck here at “Does God exist?” Or we start to talk nonsense without being able to verify whether nonsensical or not.

I recently attended an Easter service in a high Anglican church. — Tom Storm

If you heard readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is first reference to anything about God I would want to discuss. That’s where I would go for things to talk about if we wanted to talk about God.

The theists I meet (mostly Catholics, Muslims and Charismatics) tend not to appreciate ecumenism; they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

A rigid version. So more than one version. Sikhs, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc.

You are getting ahead of us and calling certain things rigid. Rigid version of “God”?

What was there about God you might judge as rigid or not from the old and New Testament readings and prayers at Easter? Let’s go there, or some other text - something concrete we can share between us.

Catholic means universal, and, mystically, the God the Catholics worship excludes no one who seeks God (even you seeking God here in this discussion), so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “rigid version of God.”

Plenty of people don’t understand God at all, and none of us understand all of God, but let’s not seek to conclude whether one faith in God can be found better, or less rigid than another faith in God if we are incapable concluding whether God exists or what God is.

And I’ve been assuming you think ecumenical impulses are good and “rigid” is bad, so maybe I misread that.

I don’t care about sects and different religions much - I associate God with love too much to start with rigid things that might obfuscate God and love, and beauty, and richness of life, etc.

I actually don’t think there’s much difference in the lives of atheists or believers when it comes to moral commitment or awareness of life’s richness. I see deep empathy, ethical reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps. — Tom Storm

Exactly. I agree. There is not much difference in all of our lives. Life’s richness, empathy, reflection, meaning, beauty - I would add love of other people. Atheists and believers alike have these experiences. These are where I would go to find evidence that God is, or to say what God is.

I tell you this because you seem to talk to religious people a lot about their religion. I’m a religious person - going to mass tomorrow as I do every Sunday. All I do differently from the scientist, is say thank you to God for these experiences, as gifts. I have nothing more or less than what any atheist has, and I get nothing more than what these experiences actually are, I just maybe would add my own gratitude for them, and I give this back to God - my only gift back for receiving as you put it “awareness of life’s richness. …deep empathy, …reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps…” my only gift back is to say “thank you” but I still give it.

This why it is hard to talk about God on TPF to me. It’s not philosophy anymore. It’s theology, or the metaphysics and ontology of faith in God.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist. And theology has no real place here on TPF anyway.

There’s also a lot of religious bigotry towards atheism. That said, I've never felt that believers are not reasoning, unless they are of the evangelical, fundamentalist kind. — Tom Storm

Incurious religious people are no fun to talk to either. Tom, you are much more fun. Clearly curious person. I was talking about “atheists” in general, I do mean most atheists interested in philosophy, but I don’t mean you.

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. As an atheist, I haven't argued that there is no God. My view is similar to most contemporary atheists: I have heard no good reason to believe in a God. — Tom Storm

I believe you, not only because you say it here and you are an honest person, but because, judging by all you say, that quick summary of your present view is what I would say of your stance as well.

Oops - accidentally hit Post button. Will continue reply in another post.

Instead they must argue for the conclusion that religion is irrational, using premises that are acceptable to their interlocutor. — Leontiskos

Precisely - that would be a discussion. You begin with whatever is agreed, lay out your logic and conclusions, and you can dispute/discuss/disagree/agree with the logic and conclusions. But If you dispute the premises already agreed upon, you are either begging to start a new/different conversation, or just hiding some other intention in bad faith, pardon the pun.

↪Banno Sorry, I'm not sure what this is referencing. — Tom Storm

Tom, Banno was telling you not to suffer fools.

the atheists require that every religious discussion must be reduced to a discussion (or assertion) about whether God exists. — Leontiskos

Yes. And, despite all the offers to discuss God and uses of “God” in their sentences, they already seem to know that God cannot exist, whatever “god” refers to anyway. But they keep asking about God, and saying what they think about it, and what they think about those who believe in God.

There is no actual interest in or curiosity about gaining some sense of what an experience with faith and God are to people who actually have faith, and who pray to God.

They don’t seem to respectfully think “that person is rational, thoughtful and able to form clear sentences, yet they believe in God - how is that? Maybe I should see what they say about God.” One minute we believers sound rational and can do the same math and logic as any good atheist/scientist would, but the next minute we jump off the deep end and say “God is”. With no curiosity, most atheists seem to immediately see our reason was a facade; our authentic, irrational, childish selves actually annimate all of our now debased arguments. Any sort of distinct “faith” and actual “god” that the believer experiences can have nothing to do with it. And our ability to be rational is downgraded to amateur-hour at best.

It’s frustrating to me, because I like any clarity, especially when it comes from some other point of view - I think, “it is amazing how the same wisdom can be made clear in so many different voices and mouths - atheists, Christians, children, even modern philosophers once in a while display wisdom.” I get wisdom out of many seemingly irreconcilable places and people. That always amazes me. There are clearly many smart people around here that don’t see God. When they see other things I see, I am amazed at how perfectly they can see them without seeing God.

Atheists don’t seem amazed at how believers see some things as exactly they do, but also still see God. Atheists seem to think if someone doesn’t agree with them, about God, then that person isn’t really reasoning, which is amazing to me in itself - like willful blindness (which is a metaphor and a paradox but apt nonetheless).

No curiosity, so no respect needed, and no real conversation. Frustrating bummer here on TPF.

I see this as asking whether the better society needs enforceable laws setting limits to our speech, or whether the best society should agree there can be no legislated limits on speech.

I’d break speech into two parts:
- what it says, or it’s content, what it is about.
- what it does, or the consequences of the act of “calling out X content.”

My answer is essentially what is the law in America. We can regulate speech based on its consequences, but we can not, with narrow exception, regulate speech based on its content.

Consider libel and slander laws.

Someone goes to the town square and yells: “X is a pedophile and has murdered three people!”
Then X gets fired from his job, loses his home, all because of those words.
X says “that’s not true - I am not a murderer pedophile.”
Now the question is whether the accusations were slander.

So this is four prongs to slander: 1 harm, 2 caused by, 3 words, 4 that are not true. (In court you would probably argue it in the following order: speech, that is untrue, that causes, harm.)

You need all four, but if you have all four, it seems like a legitimate and necessary function of government that, in order to resolve this conflict and make slander illegal, we place certain limits on speech. The court could demand a public retraction, forbid people from saying those words like that again, and make people pay for the money lost and damage caused.

You can say that looking at whether the words are true is looking at the content of the speech. But it can be slander to accuse anyone of anything that is not true. “He was at a MAGA rally.” Then he was fired, his Tesla burned, etc…”. It doesn’t matter what flavor or color the slander takes, it just has to be any words, that are not true, causing damages.

What about straight fraud?
“This snake oil will cure your cancer - give me $1000 and you will be cured.” We can’t let the guy who spends his money based on those words remain without recourse because the salesman says “I have the right to free speech.” Fraud is a type of speech that must be limited by law.

“Fire!” in a crowded building is another case. It’s the stampede that makes the harm because of words of incitement. “Riot starts at the police department!”

So we need laws to address direct harms caused from recklessly false or intentionally false speech, or speech that directly incites crimes.

BUT - laws against the content of speech in itself, regardless of consequences??

That is Orwellian. Newspeak. State controlled media. The end of all possibility of political, societal freedom.

Nevertheless, we still regulate speech based on content, even though it immediately tends towards totalitarianism.

Making pornography illegal for people under 18 years old is regulation of speech based on the content. Only by saying “that is pornography” can we then enforce a law for providing such content to a 12 year old. So with such laws on the books, we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother telling everyone what they can and cannot read and say to others.

I agree that we want to keep spaces free for audiences of all ages, and that requires content regulation, because not all content is for all audiences. So some minimal type of content based speech limiting laws are permissible. Protect minors is a good guideline to allow for narrow laws.

We want to protect religious speech spaces, and keep public spaces non-sectarian, meaning no specific religious or atheist or other “beliefs” can be favored by law.

Another content based speech limit is the law against threatening the life of the president. I don’t like that law, because a political opponent has to be able to say out loud “we will crush him, and his whole party in the next election!”

But it is probably a matter of how such a law gets enforced, because for someone to threaten the life of the president, if that was someone in the room with him, that might be like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

But anyway, the instant a law limiting speech based on content has the slightest possibility of influencing political speech, or any art, as long as that speech doesn’t also incite actual “fire!!”, that law must not be allowed and the speech must be protected.

In summary, intending to incite nothing but maybe more discussion, fuck off if you don’t like my thoughts on free speech.

whether the "such a thing as a definition" is meant to refer to our innocuous, stipulated-for-the-purposes-of-discussion definition, or something more permanent and indisputable. — J

With respect to what is a definition, the only difference to me between the stipulated version, and the more permanent, to me, is a matter of degree. The stipulated version is likely weak, vague, minimally helpful, easily used imprecisely, and/or just bad (or accidentally good but need further investigation). The more permanent version is closer to useful and reflective of the thing defined.

It’s a question of degree, not some sort of difference in kind, between a stipulated definition or a more solid definition. So it’s all the same thing - a definition.

If we define “faith” as “not corned beef” we have a sort of silly limit case. But that’s the whole ballgame. We have a clear bright line between at least two things. We have a definition shaping up. We know a difference. If we want to look further at “corned beef” we should not look towards “faith”. That is to be treated as absolute, “indisputable, and permanent.”

This is just wildly unhelpful if trying to say anything more about either faith or corned beef.

This silly limit provides no good definition to either thing; but because I know “not faith” tells me something about “corned beef”, further investigation might bring me to a deli as opposed to a church. By the time I am pointing to “pastrami” and to “corned beef”, seeing where they overlap and where they differ, now my definition of corned beef might be starting to approach the essence of some thing. I’m much closer to something permanent and indisputable that might actually also function (use) to allow for communication to happen.

The stipulated definition isn’t innocuous in my view. It’s just likely a poor definition of the two things on either side of the limit, and, if still interested in discussing either of those two things, this limit needs further scrutiny and revision and detailed observation and wording that enables communication about those two things.

And now I realize I haven’t had a Reuben in months. What is “travesty”?

I honestly havn't been able to follow — Banno

:rofl: I know! That is so you! But thanks for saying it again.

If you are interested in my responses, please, as a common courtesy, link my name in your posts. — Banno

First, I didn’t think you could understand me, so why bother.

Second, There are fifty things prior to my posts with Leon that you didn’t respond to. Linking your name is no use, is meaningless, towards any interest in obtaining an honest response from you.

Third, Seems muddle-headed for you expect courtesy from me.

this is a lot harder than it looks.

I'll try to come back to this . . . — J

Telling ya… The rub of all philosophy. How can we say something about anything.

I don’t have the time, energy, brains or education to do it, but it’s never going away, from me, or human nature. The desire the know. Why is there something?

some criterion of relevance. — J

Setting some criteria of relevance, to me, is a sibling to just saying there is such a thing as a definition.

But words do not exist primarily in some Platonic realm, or in dictionaries. They exist foremost on the tongues of speakers, and it is the speaker who must be queried in the first place. They may answer the query with idiosyncratic usage, and we may walk away after deciding that communication with such a person would be unduly burdensome, but it nevertheless remains the fact that the meaning of a word is found in the person who speaks it. — Leontiskos

Yes.
Some may say this justifies meaning as use, but that would misinterpret what you expressly said. No need for interpretation.

“the meaning of a word is found in the person who speaks it.”

And to the listener who listens, the meaning can then be received and reworded. So that meaning, words and persons, are all distinct objects immediately present when language is…happening.

I appreciate the response and dialogue.

Usually, when people talk about defining something, I think they have in mind more like a dictionary definition, an agreed-upon use of a word which makes it correct. But you've said, and I agree, that "stipulating a definition for the purposes of discussion" isn't like that. It's more like drawing a temporary distinction in terms so that two people can converse intelligently. I'm not sure what's elephantine here. — J

I agree when discussing “truth” or “reality” or “faith” - a dictionary won’t do. I agree about what stipulated definitions are, namely, never to be simply judged “correct.” They are tools to facilitate or maybe start a conversation.

But I also think a few other things, particularly when the conversation is directly asking for something that a definition would address - like, a “what is faith” conversation.

Banno said when people use the word “faith” they don’t normally say “corned beef” as well. Without saying it, Banno shows what I think, and that is, there must be something incorrect about relating “faith” with “corned beef” in normal uses if these terms. Just plain incorrect (according to me, not to Banno - I dont know what Banno actually thinks). It’s a false fact that faith involves corned beef (actually I think it can be a Kosher meat, so we might squeeze corned beef into a way too long conversation about faith, so pretend Banno said “socks”’instead of corned beef.)

Likewise, and we can continue to debate this, in my view, we are not going to get away from a discussion about what faith is, without addressing “trust” (another can of worms), and I think “knowledge and belief” (cans mounting, stipulations begging for entry). And in the end, we are not simply “drawing a temporary distinction in terms so that two people can converse intelligently,” but we are conversing itself for reason, and doing so to identify bright lines like where faith ends and corned beef and socks begin. We may never say of our definition “it is finished and it is correct” but we can say “Faith has at least something to do with trust and belief in someone or something - and it would be incorrect to exclude trust and belief when considering ‘what is faith’.”

So while I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I don’t think you’ve said enough, or as much as I am saying.

I still believe I am seeing bright lines between identifiably distinct things that are worth noting in a conversation as clearly as I see them, as in “faith always involves trust, among other things.” That’s correct to me. It’s not all faith involves so I have no reason to celebrate. But it’s my first bright line in the neighborhood of faith, and a beginning to the correct definition of faith.

It makes it sound as if you have to address them all, and all at once, in order to get any philosophical work done. — J

This is precisely where I am in my philosophic growth. I currently believe the only way to discuss epistemology is to also discuss metaphysics (which includes language use) while expressly admitting your ontology (which includes physics).

What is. (Metaphysics)
How it is to me. (Epistemology)
Whether it is. (Ontology)
They all beg each other, answer each other, and each cannot be asked without asking each other.

This is way off topic but your sense of where I am coming from was right on. It is flabbergasting, but unfortunately, I think it’s the only way forward, and it is the reason philosophy is stuck (since the 1800s), and is why all of these threads meander back to these same questions.

We back into the starting gate unless we behave more like a mystic (much to the chagrin of the modern scientist.). I, unfortunately, have concluded that we scientists must treat the absurd and the paradoxical, the impossible to say, as if physical objects, if we are to say or simply know one thing.

I’m way off towards Pluto at this point. Makes one long for a simple conversation about “faith”.

If they know what they mean by it then they will be able to tell you what they mean by it. If they don’t know what they mean by it then they are talking nonsense by literally saying meaningless things. If they refuse to tell you what they mean by a word but yet continue to pretend to use it, then they lack good faith and will not provide meaningful engagement. — Leontiskos

Spot on. I appreciate you weighing in. I guess not everything I said is muddled-headed to everyone. (I actually know that, but appreciate your reply.)

I keep thinking Banno is smart enough to display some wisdom, or something interesting, even accidentally, in response to me, so I engage anyway. But, minimal happy accidents, many cliche and tiresome parrots channeling St. Wittgenstein, and maximal frustration strike again.

Banno doesn’t seem to understand he’s being squarely challenged by many around here and he keeps failing to respond. At all.

It is fairly miraculous how all the “muddle” never reflects on him or his methods or his “uses of words.” It’s also quite amazing to me how little self-awareness of his condescension he has, and more importantly, how little awareness of how contradictory he is, like when he “refuses to tell you what [he] means by a word but yet continues to pretend to use it.” Pretend. Like gaming. Spot on.

<Religious persons are irrational because faith is irrational, and I can’t say what faith is beyond associating it with irrationality>. — Leontiskos

I like all of your restatements, but I like this one the best. I like it best because Banno can’t see that this describes the essence of his beliefs on “faith”. All puns intended.

In my thread <here> I point out the difference between an assertion and an argument. — Leontiskos

I remember reading that. I had high hopes it would be instructive for some people. Alas…you must have confused them by using the word “difference” or something, or worse, you offered a definition (God forbid!).

Hopefully this highlights what is actually going on in the thread. It has nothing to do with definitions; it has to do with arguments, — Leontiskos

Yes, you are right. This is why Banno keeps trying to talk past me. I haven’t really gotten to the arguments. I’m just trying to establish trust and grounds for a genuine exchange, where he looks at everything like it’s a linguistic trap, or beneath his dignity as high judge of all muddle.

Banno has at long last stumbled upon his own rationale:

1b. Obstinacy is irrational
2b. (Religious) faith involves obstinacy
3. Therefore, (Religious) faith is irrational — Leontiskos

You are kind enough to use his favored analytic methods. I agree, his necessary connection between faith and obstinacy is the weakness.

I made that point with Galileo. When Galileo was arrested, he was obstinate in his beliefs under strain and duress. So, was he being a man of faith, starting a new religion? Banno dismissively said Galileo recanted. Totally missed the point. That only means Gallileo lost faith then (according to Banno’s use/definition of “faith”). Didn’t address my point, at all, as usual, which was simply that there must be something else, something more specific to faith if we are to distinguish what Gallileo held versus what a faithful person holds.

Or maybe Gallileo really almost was a martyr in Banno’s religion. Fell from grace by recanting.

I would feel like I’m being mean-spirited, but I don’t think my thoughts register in the lofty heights of Banno’s world, up above all of the ladders.

“Unless we first”

“Have at hand…in order to”

These place things in order of some priority. How hard is that to follow?

I keep forgetting you are willfully blind, and blinding, in your rigorous faith in Wittgenstein.

You don’t want to see how you can’t throw away the ladder and communicate.

You don’t want to communicate, just pontificate.

Don’t know how I am using definition? I wish I could define it for you.

So much for successful discussion despite no prior essence ready to hand.

Demonstrable failure to communicate.

concepts will always inhere in something else. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hi Timothy.

I see us all breaking things down into so many parts. “Inhere” could be problematic. Is this a better way of saying “participate in the forms” or my “concepts are always concepts of something”?

More general principles will tend to be harder to define because they can be analogously predicated under many aspects. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But does that mean definitions should be, or even can be, avoided if we want to ensure communication of ideas among people?

While the two go together, there can be flight without flapping or flapping without flight. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Like there might be “faith” with or without “persistence into death” or “persistence into death” with or without faith.

That is the kind of meaning as use issue that arises, begging the pursuit of something even more essential to the notion of “faith”.

You go on to mention “trust” (which I did way back in the thread as well) may be a part of what is faith. And there other aspects.

I don’t think anyone has carved out the noun “faith” which is more like a religious creed, from the act of “having faith in something” which can be more generically had. The more generic “having faith in” can just mean anything from following intuition, to trusting the words of someone else, to believing in some end without seeing the path that will get you there.

But I believe, I have faith in, our ability to define something of the essence of faith. I don’t believe Banno will suffer my resistance to Wittegensteim-speak in avoidance of definitions much longer, but I want to believe Banno could see some of my points.

I also believe, there are long, precise paths we must take to answer questions about meaning, and definition and essence, but if our answers in the end don’t make sense in some simple and naive manner as well, they are astray. We can’t forget the naive question by the time we arrive at the complex answer. We have to be able to answer “what is faith” with “faith is x, y, etc…”. Or why bother “communicating” about it, or why conclude anyone else knows what we know?

I'm not getting much out of your repeatedly misunderstanding what I write. — Banno

I appreciate the organized response. The numbered paragraphs.

But I’m forced to mostly respond on your terms again. Because you don’t make many direct connections to what I actually said.

First, we do not need to have at hand the essence of some thing in order to talk about it. See the "mum" example given previously. We use words with great success without knowing the essence of whatever it is they stand for. Demonstrably, since we can talk about faith wiothout agreeing on the essence of faith.

Thinking we can't use words unless we first fix their essence is muddle-headed. — Banno

“we do not need to have at hand the essence of some thing in order to talk about it.”

You keep placing the essence or definition prior to the thing, or the word about that thing. You also said:

“Thinking we can't use words unless we first fix their essence is muddle-headed.”

“Unless we first”. I didn’t say that. I’m not giving any priority among the word, or its definition/essence, or the “some thing” the word is about.

I think your causal type prioritization of the pieces, that you think comes from me, is your own doing, it’s how you think, not me. And I can see how that would distort my meaning. I don’t drink the Wittegensteinian cool-aid, as thirstily.

I’m just saying words about things have definitions.

Words-about things-defined.
Definitions-of words-name things/concepts.
Things-defined-in words.

It is precisely the inability to place one of these as prior to the others that demands we can’t avoid defining things, if we want to actually communicate, actually deliver a concept, in words, to another. Definitions emerge as words distinguish things and distinguish themselves in use.

So you aren’t addressing what I said. You are recharacterizing with new elements, adding concepts to what I’m saying and in so doing, not seeing the essence of what I’m saying.

“We use words with great success without knowing the essence of whatever it is they stand for. Demonstrably, since we can talk about faith wiothout agreeing on the essence of faith.”

Ok, maybe, but just because we can do these things, this doesn’t address what I am saying either.

Just because we can identify words to use without “knowing” definitions doesn’t mean definitions aren’t there. So this is, to me, is a non-sequitur, or a fallacious argument. It doesn’t mean that we should have have to avoid defining our terms in a discussion that asks “what is X”.

But with “great” success? I disagree anyway. As is demonstrable in our inability to really communicate.

“we can talk about faith without agreeing on the essence of faith.”

I agree with this clause. We don’t need the whole essence or complete definition. But not with great success. And we can go through your “uses of faith” exercise or my hash out the essential elements exercise to confirm actual “success” as you say.

But overall, I disagree with your analysis quoted above. And I showed you specifically how I disagreed.

The following two mistakes are muddling your assessment of my meaning: 1 attaching some sort of causal priority to definitions/essences, (I don’t) and 2 thinking I am saying we need the full definition with all necessary sufficient conditions, or without it we have no definition at all. (never meant that either) These are features of how you think “essence” or “definition” is being used, but is not how I have used them.

Some of the other things you say deserve attention, particularly your dismissive comments on the aboutness of all words, but what do you think of the above first?

I've not said there are no definitions, just that there are few good ones. — Banno

I have to infer this by your manner saying "I've not said no," but if you are saying "there are definitions," then we agree perfectly.
And if you are saying there are few good definitions, then we also agree (and would be agreeing with Plato's Socrates as well. Precious few.)

A stipulated definition cannot set out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of "faith" — Banno

Ok, but must we abandon all hope for any small piece of the essence of "faith", abandon all hope for some small portion of some of those conditions that are necessarily tied to "faith"?

a better approach is to look at how the word is actually used. — Banno

That, to me, is a method for defining. It doesn't avoid a resulting definition for faith. You can avoid saying it provides a definition, but that, to me, is like doing all of the math for a complex equation, but refusing to write down the resulting answer. We are solving for X, mapping uses, but never just stating what, therefore, X is.

Not all words are nouns, so not all words name something. — Banno

Yes, and no.

Obviously there are many parts of speech besides nouns. And words like "yes" function uniquely from the basic parts of speech. I'm not talking about grammar.

When we speak, we speak about. Right? Speaking is always speaking about. We never speak (qua speaking) without speaking about some other thing.

There is the word, but, if it is a word, there also what the word is about, what the word is being used for (to use your/Witts vernacular).

Like a name. A use of "Banno" is something about you. A use of "use" is something about something else.

When I say "yes" I am doing something - it's not a noun, and there is no normal naming. But if someone else can't tell what I am doing when I say "yes", they still know what "yes" is about. They have to know what "yes" is about to be confused or satisfied with my use. "Yes" names or points to a particular use-function or meaning. If they ask "Do you want vanilla or chocolate?" and I just say "Yes", they might be confused, because they know how "yes" is normally used, and in response to "vanilla OR chocolate", a simple "Yes" names or points in a direction that does not account for the "or". Unless there was a bag full of random Strawberry or Mango ice creams, and a second bag full of vanilla or chocolate ice creams, and the person asking the question wanted to see if I want to risk a strawberry or mango surprise, or a vanilla or chocolate surprise - then "yes" to "vanilla or chocolate" makes perfect sense. But all along, "yes" pointed to or named the function of "agreement", all along, "yes" was about something. (If words have meanings/defintitions/dare-I-say-essences.)

Here is a better example. If you listen to a song sung in some language foreign to you, you might love the sound of the singer's voice, and hear the rhyme of the syllables, but none of those "words" can even be called "words" - none of the lyrics are about anything to you. It might actually be jibberish, and no language at all. But, as soon as I find what the words are about, as soon as I see how they have been used to point out something else, I can name similar words in English that might express the same meaning of the song. Translation is possible because all words name, all words point to, all words are about.

As usual, we are talking past each other.

How can you speak about anything of substance on this forum without delineating distinctions? How is any delineation not some form of definition? And now, once you admit to defining, why persist in raising "cannot set out the necessary and sufficient conditions" as if you aren't defining your terms all of the time anyway?

I know you think a person of faith, acting on their faith qua faith, is not being rational, and that faith qua faith can be used to support heinous evil. All of that may be true, but then, why would you think you have not defined something of the "rational" and given some border and color to "evil"? If one challenges your commentary, you resort to "you shouldn't define terms".

Why would you think you understand other's uses of faith if faith is something you have no use for?

You need to say more to defend your position AND/OR to deconstruct mine. You just snipe. You can do better, I think.

Take care.

words and concepts are quite distinct — J

But we can let it go. — J

"Concepts" versus "words" versus "whatever content X" (here, "faith"). This is the nub of all philosophy, no?

It is really difficult to step outside of language, and talk about language, using only language to do it. That's the rub of the nub.

(And it's the irony of our disagreement over words.)

This conversation is a close cousin to questions like "do you support a mind-independent reality" and "what are the forms". It's where philosophers end up when talking "what is" anything, such as "metaphysics" as you mentioned above. It's all a convoluted mess with the mind, with thoughts about things, or with language about thoughts about things, and further convoluted when we try to get two people to agree on the language about thoughts about things. It's why so many threads devolve into this same issue - "what can be said clearly, at all, ever, about anything?"

And while having these conversations, to downplay the function and necessity of words having/acquiring/being given their own definitions...seems as vain as many seem to think defining a word is vain.

My point is, we shouldn't try to avoid definitions when addressing questions "what is X". And, we, in fact, can't avoid defining our terms (which is why we shouldn't try).

You, who I am assuming think we don't need so much reliance on definitions to communicate, in reference to "discovering a definition" you said the phrase "universal agreement within a particular community." This is a definition of "definition." Right? It's too late to avoid it. Since we are now talking about my use of "definition" and you want to differ with me, you were forced to draw a clear line, provide a provisional, cursory, placeholder definition of "definition" to show a distinction between your concept of things and mine.

That is all my point is. We define when we speak. If we are to speak, we must define. Once we define, once we have communicated a concept, a definition exists, in the word, out in the world among human beings, written in stone.

We dance around the elephant we keep inviting into the room when we think we are not defining things as we speak about things.

I truly appreciate the patience with me, because I know there are many technical ways you want to use words like "concepts" and "definitions" - but technical according to Aristotle, or Wittgenstein, or Augustine, or Quine, or Dostoevsky?

There is no way to have this conversation briefly.

It's the question of "how do we know." It's "what is truth?" It's "What is meaning?" It's "What is a thing?". Same ultimate issues presented. Words-concepts-communication.

And I don't expect you to just say "wow - I never thought of it that way." We started with "what is faith' and ended up with "what do any words do?"

I have no problem saying our words give our concepts definition, and I seek that definition. That's the unspeakable elephant I dance with.

definitions that can be shown beforehand to be correct, — J

What is with the “beforehand” and the “correct”? Banno said “foundational”.

The post asks “what is faith”. So the foundation is a question.

Beforehand, we have no definition.

We will be incorrect as we speak “faith” trying to define it.

Our final understanding of faith will likely be incomplete, contain imprecision, contain error, need further revision.

But we can’t avoid defining faith if we want to distinguish “faith” from other things. (Or use “faith” in a sentence that can be understood.)

Rather than arguing about a word, why not keep looking at the concept, the idea, the thing under discussion, under whatever name or description? — J

Looking at a single concept, an idea, is looking at a word. Words name concepts. So there is no difference between arguing about a word and communicating about a concept.

Now if you want to call that "discovering a definition," I can't stop you, but I think definitions are established by universal agreement within a particular community, not by the sort of ameliorative process I just described. — J

If you don’t want to call what you just did here defining the word “definition” I think you merely handicap our ability to communicate, our ability to share concepts from one mind to another.

We are playing semantics with the definition of “definition” to painstakingly avoid using definitions of words. Ridiculous way of exchanging thought.

Definitions are secondary and derivative — Banno

But not non-existent. Not to be painstakingly avoided when trying to communicate.

You just contradicted yourself. If “definitions are” then my work is done.

Take care.

someone can of course have reasons for choosing something that isn't their preference. — flannel jesus

The clearest example of a free choice is a choice made against and despite all biases, drivers, necessities and forces. Choosing the cake that no one wants, that you don't need, that you think will taste horrible, that you are told not to choose, that will kill you, and without any need to choose anything at all - choosing that cake, can only be an act of freedom. Giving ones life can be an act of freedom.

There are gradations of course. Choosing the cake that you hate but for someone else who loves that cake, knowing that other person doesn't expect or even know about the cake (so no cake is needed), this might be a cake chosen out of free will and no outside forces.

So what is freewill then - what is left to drive the choice if one is choosing outside of all biases, drivers, and forces?

I don't know, but describe it this way - we create the thing called "will" in the same instant we choose against forces that demand we choose something else. When we seek all three cakes, see our drivers and biases towards this cake or that one, and then choose something else, the choice is the physical manifestation of the now created "my will" that consents to that choice belonging to "me".

I understand what you mean, but why not do both? — J

I actually think all of us philosophic thinkers, do both at the same time.

In order to speak, we are metaphysicians, taking ontological objects, in an epistemology.

To do metaphysics, we posit objects related through epistemology.
To do epistemology, we posit objects related through metaphysics.
To posit objects, we universalize (meta), our perceptions (existing particular things - ontological objects).

To focus on any one area, we must focus on all three at once. We don't peer into epistemology without a metaphysic and ontology supporting us. We don't peer into metaphysics witihout an epistemology supporting us.

The fourth thing we do, because we speak to others about our metaphysical, ontological, epistemological mental activities, is language itself. Language, to me is metaphysics, for the sake of epistemology. Words refer to, like knowledge is knowledge of.

Which is why it is dissappointing when people raise a topic, make some points about that topic, and then leave it all at "that cannot be defined". They have already denied the inability to define it by speaking "it" and not "that".

What I'm calling the "wrangle" begins when someone tries to claim that the stipulation is correct. — J

I agree with everything you said.

I would clarify that the wrangle as we are now wrangling here, begins when someone tries to claim there are stipulations at all.

I get the Wittgensteinian observations that ask the question:

what can be usefully defined. — J

I get it.

I don't get seeing "faith" is one of those things that cannot be usefully defined, and then continuing to talk about faith. Ridiculous. No one can ever say anything, nor says anything, nor said anything, without reference to differences and distinctions and definitions (or essences if you so choose to name them), by creating a reference point like "faith" and trying to distinguish what has been said from what has not been said. So are the anti-essentialist, non-definers saying anything at all about anything, or what? What recourse could we have to answer that question without defining things and revealing definitions?

There is no need or ability to once and for all clarify the distinct definitions that separate fairy elves from fairy godmothers. If you think "faith" is a word like "fairy elf", that points to nothing ultimately defineable, why try to speak about it all?

But if you think there is something, anything, specific to faith that would distinguish it from anything else you think about specifically, then you must be able to define that specific, line approaching "faith" and leaving "fairy elf" behind.

When talking about “x”, such as “faith” or “metaphysics” or “cats, not mats”, we can either talk about “x” using definitions, or we can talk about the difficulties of “talking about x” and avoid talking about x and instead talk about talking.
— Fire Ologist

I understand what you mean, but why not do both? — J

I think it is essential to do both in order to do the science of philosophy. Talking about talking is more like epistemology. It wonders about the ontology of the connections between my mind, the words my mind creates, and the objects about which my mind is directed and about which my words refer. We need to do this.

Talking about "faith" or "cat, not mat" is more like metaphysics, which is more like physics. It wonders about existing things, not how they are knowable or spoken of. It just says them. "Atoms make chemical combinations." To continue speaking, one needs to define atoms as distinguished from chemical combinations - one needs to do physics and metaphysics.

In other words, when I hear someone say "faith cannot be defined", because that person said 'faith' and not some other thing, all I heard them say is "I don't know the definition of 'faith'." If "faith" cannot be defined, than they haven't said anything at all yet, but jibberish, like "elf" when they said "faith." So if they want to continue asserting things like "that is not 'faith', or 'they don't understand how to use 'faith' in a sentence", then you must merely be saying, about "faith", that they don't know how to define it; they are not actually saying "faith cannot be defined" at all.

If you question whether the assertion "atoms" refers to anything that can approach a definition, you have to instead talk about how we can talk about "atoms" at all meaningfully, and we are back to the same, more epistemological conversation that could care less about the distinction between atoms and chemical combinations. Like here, talking about "predication, versus definition" which could care less about "faith" or any other particular object, like "metaphysics" was on the other thread.

interestingly, is very similar to the point I made about "metaphysics," over on the "Hotel Manager" thread, where we began discussing whether "a wrangle over definitions" is usually useful or not. — J

It’s the same conversation on so many threads. Same exact conversation. Which is a good conversation, but without definitions, a conversation about “faith” and a conversation about “metaphysics” become the same conversation about “conversation.”

When talking about “x”, such as “faith” or “metaphysics” or “cats, not mats”, we can either talk about “x” using definitions, or we can talk about the difficulties of “talking about x” and avoid talking about x and instead talk about talking.

I agree it is hard to define certain ideas, like faith. But admitting the difficulty in fixing one permanent all inclusive definition of things like “faith” is not the same thing as admitting “there are no definitions, or essences or meanings of words to define.”

If one marks any line between any two directions, if one says “this” to clarify “not those”, definitions emerge. Otherwise, without definitions of words to track against the things those words speak of, Speaking “this” while meaning “not those” would not be possible.

If we deny this, we might not have said “this” in the first place; but we already did say ‘this’, we already did say ‘faith’, we are already speaking and partially understanding each others’ partial definitions and blurry but nevertheless clarifying lines.

But speaking is always speaking of. We need what comes after the ‘of’ in ‘speaking of..’ in order to say we are speaking at all. We speak, and communicate our minds to other minds, so definitions must emerge between us.

You said “… we began discussing whether "a wrangle over definitions" is usually useful or not.”

Like “faith”, what is a “wrangle”?

We can’t avoid the essence we speak of and speak of ‘this’ and not ‘that’. We can’t avoid definitions without having the same conversation about all things (as if there are no differences to speak of.)

predications, not definitions. — Banno

“Predications” as distinct from definitions. There goes the goal post again. Or there you go pulling the ladder out from under yourself.

Just more words to struggle to avoid defining (while predicating and presumably relating mappable elements) and while we avoid defining “faith” instead.

How are you able to speak and think you are not giving me definitions? Not forcing definitions down my throat with each predication, not definition, you distinguish and speak of??

It’s literally preposterous to me, or a lie. If you know what a lie is (as opposed to knowing how to use “lie” in a sentence.)

“Here, let me now explain how there are no such things as words. For some reason, it is best if I use words to do so, so just bear with me, we may never get there, but I will keep talking about wordlessness until there is no further need of explanation…”.

Or, “watch as we approach the goalpost of ‘faith’, as soon as I bring you near to it, I will move it and replace it with some other goal post, like ‘mapping use’.”

It’s why Wittgenstein had to explain the ladder he built was to be thrown away. He had to say that out loud to avoid our confusion at the structure and definition he built.

Here is where we should agree:

Defining things (what I like to do) is as absurd as talking about undefined things (what you do).

Maybe I shouldn’t start speaking until I clarify what an essence is, or what a definition does for speech.

But maybe you should not start speaking until you can show something can be said about anything without having thus defined that thing.

If you don’t see meanings of words, meanings in your mind to define as you speak about those words (ie faith), that’s fine, but I say to you, without essential definitions, without discernible, perceptible distinctions between things in mind, you can’t speak.

You aren’t communicating, or you are lying, if you say you don’t see the meaning of the definition of “faith” here:

“

Faith […] is persistence under conditions of strain, doubt, or suffering — Banno

It doesn’t matter how you mean those words, or where those words came from, or if they are complete; they are now the objects used, with others, to define “faith” in this discussion. They are useful words when speaking of the essence of “faith”.

It’s unnecessarily impractical to handicap a discussion by avoiding definitions for each and every term we say to each other. It is unhelpful to painstakingly avoid definition, while predicating.

Otherwise you are wasting your time making up your uses for words so that once anything concrete is established we will remind ourselves we have only been “mapping uses” and not found anything fixed by ‘this map.’

We are all stuck with ‘this’ and ‘not that’ - like “predications, not definitions.” Why deny it? Or more precisely, why deny it, while trying to speak about ‘this, not that’??