A Note on Definitions

[Morality Games]

Alteration of the definition of even a single word can render whole statements functionless or dysfunctional in contexts where before they appeared true -- in this way, it is possible to make statements false without changing their external structure, but because definition-alteration invariably removes statements from their original contexts, it is impossible to prove statements are wrong in their original contexts just by changing the definition of one or more words.

To elaborate, people often attempt to make an argument appear right or wrong by playing around with definitions, but they do this without realizing that the definition of any word can be changed in anyway, and that it is only certain nonconscious adherence to convention which prevents them from thinking this way -- they do not think to change the words "the" or "is" as frequently as that of "justice", but they could do that just as easily. Furthermore, they frequently fail to realize that altering a word automatically removes it, at least partially, from the original context, and that this inevitably leads to the argument getting off subject. This is because the original context is an important part of the original subject.

Additonally, it is important to note that definition changes are not always noticeable. Listeners generally react to a word’s use with their stock understanding of it, and this may not necessarily reflect what the speaker had in mind, so a disagreeing listener may trick the speaker into a position of defeat simply by suggesting a realistic-sounding counter-definition which makes the statement malfunction. This way of arguing is an illusion because it does not accomplish anything in the way of elucidation. The trick is not removing the statement from its original context, but rather clarifying the context and seeing how effectively the statement relates to relevant situations – if it does not relate, then the statement is functionless or dysfunctional (and therefore unproductive or malproductive), and if it does relate, then it is functional (and therefore productive).

So, instead of challenging someone's definition of a word (even if it immediately appears senseless or unthinkable), assume the definition is true and then see how effective the whole statement is in qualifying objectives of interest.

[Merge]

This would be a very good post to sticky for the philosophy and religion forum. It might make people a lot more aware of how they are going about constructing their arguments.

[Zhavric]

You're lucky.

You weren't around for the worst of it... when we had Fonceai (banned), Kamehamaha(sp?), ZNFYR, and Helio on this forum. Those guys would routinely redefine words and concepts in order to validate whatever BS assertions they happened to be pushing that week. That was back in the "let's everyone hate on Zhavric" days that some forum members still haven't worked through. Basically, if I said it then it was wrong. "Zhavric said circles are round? Well... well... some circles are squares!!" "Zhavric pointed out that our natural proclivity in life is to treat unsupported outlandish claims as false? Well... uhm... I think they're just unknown." It's a phase that volconvo is blessedly beginning to outgrow.

However, don't waste too much time on this thread. Because I've come out in favor of your op, there will be a minority of armchair philosophers who want to argue. I recommend you point out the stupidity of their arguments. If words can have any definition that we want, assume any rational sentence is a string of insults and report them to the mods.

Seriously, did you know that Kame's epistemology doesn't allow for him to confirm that he exists? How can one make any claim at all when one cannot claim, "I exist"? I bring this up because this is the kind of backwards logic you're going to face. I mean, can you imagine trying to debate someone like that? "I'm not sure that I exist, but I am sure that abortion exists and it's bad." Yeah... and he started the "logicians" forum... that's like having a "how to make friends with theists" club run by yours truly.

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Zhavric You're lucky. You weren't around for the worst of it... when we had Fonceai (banned), Kamehamaha(sp?), ZNFYR, and Helio on this forum. Those guys would routinely redefine words and concepts in order to validate whatever BS assertions they happened to be pushing that week. That was back in the "let's everyone hate on Zhavric" days that some forum members still haven't worked through. Basically, if I said it then it was wrong. "Zhavric said circles are round? Well... well... some circles are squares!!" "Zhavric pointed out that our natural proclivity in life is to treat unsupported outlandish claims as false? Well... uhm... I think they're just unknown." It's a phase that volconvo is blessedly beginning to outgrow. However, don't waste too much time on this thread. Because I've come out in favor of your op, there will be a minority of armchair philosophers who want to argue. I recommend you point out the stupidity of their arguments. If words can have any definition that we want, assume any rational sentence is a string of insults and report them to the mods. Seriously, did you know that Kame's epistemology doesn't allow for him to confirm that he exists? How can one make any claim at all when one cannot claim, "I exist"? I bring this up because this is the kind of backwards logic you're going to face. I mean, can you imagine trying to debate someone like that? "I'm not sure that I exist, but I am sure that abortion exists and it's bad." Yeah... and he started the "logicians" forum... that's like having a "how to make friends with theists" club run by yours truly.

I clicked the link to verify my Volconvo account, therefore I must exist; a slight variation on Descartes but it seems to work.

Unless, of course, this forum is merely a figment of my non-existent imagination in which case I've got a horde of completely unreasonable personalities roaming around my head.. oh wait, no head. *sigh* It's very complicated business, not existing.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KayTwee I clicked the link to verify my Volconvo account, therefore I must exist; a slight variation on Descartes but it seems to work. Unless, of course, this forum is merely a figment of my non-existent imagination in which case I've got a horde of completely unreasonable personalities roaming around my head.. oh wait, no head. *sigh* It's very complicated business, not existing.

LOL

Congratulations. Your epistemology already crushes that of several of the regulars.

[HelioPrime]

Your forgetting the fact words change over time. A word might not change in meaning but we can add new traits to it as time passes. This is evident with many of the phrases used when discussing religion.

2000 years ago many modern words would not have existed, instead they had their similar phrase in another language. As time passes and in translation words gain new meaning determined by those doing the translating, especially a given phrase doesn't make sense or they desire to change it for their own purposes.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime Your forgetting the fact words change over time.

Red herring. We all know that words change over time. What we're addressing (and what you're evading) is you & others inventing new definitions on the spot to salvage arguments others have refuted. Don't do that and we won't have to waste time in threads like these explaining how wrong you are.

Oh, and someone kindly quote this (preferably in bold) as Helio has grown tired of getting OWN3D by me and has placed me on ignore... because it makes it easier for him to spout his untenable arguments without me to call him on it.

Thanks.

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Zhavric LOL Congratulations. Your epistemology already crushes that of several of the regulars.

Well, it's a work in progress. So far I can only verify that I exist in the forum.. but I'm fairly certain I can expand this fairly easily. I'm thinking something along the lines of:

If this was all in my imagination, normal bodily functions would be superfluous therefore the fact that I realized today that I'm about to run out of toilet paper must mean that I have normal bodily functions, thus proving my corporeal existence. Of course, it could also just mean that I'm full of crap.

[HelioPrime]

What is a leader?

Well today we'd define as a person in charge of a group, organization, nation, some structure of people.

2000 years ago in the middle east a leader would be a MAN in charge etc...

The definition of a word has changed.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime The definition of a word has changed.

Quote by: Me Red herring. We all know that words change over time. What we're addressing (and what you're evading) is you & others inventing new definitions on the spot to salvage arguments others have refuted. Don't do that and we won't have to waste time in threads like these explaining how wrong you are.

With the arguments that you present and the rebuttals I give, can you really afford to have me on ignore? Really?

[Morality Games]

Moreover, we know an objective reality exists because we can make note of how we are irreducibly constrained by it.

What is a leader? Well today we'd define as a person in charge of a group, organization, nation, some structure of people. 2000 years ago in the middle east a leader would be a MAN in charge etc... The definition of a word has changed.

There is a vital difference between that and what you do. Here, the images around people have changed, so the word acquires a new meaning. Remember, words refer to images -- language attempts to describe the logical structure of images as they appear in the mind's eye. Moreover, even though the meaning has broadened, it still essentially refers to the same objective, which is beings with authority over others. So, while the meaning of words change, it generally happens slowly and naturally with reference to the kind of world multiple speakers-writers find themselves in.

In contrast, you jumble together a bunch of images by defying the conventional meanings of word, inevitably producing incoherency and contradiction, making productive argument impossible. What's worse, you don't even make a standard practice out of systematically explaining the constitution of the new definition and why you are justified in altering it before employing it. Then you hold it against people when they mistake your meaning, which is a a dishonest rhetorical trick.

Also, to nitpick everything to death, Middle Eastern peoples who lived 2000 years ago probably would not have used English language vocabulary to designate the authorities in their societies.

[HelioPrime]

Not to sound rude but can you talk without sounding like its a grad studies seminar program? You write in that fashion that sounds like a very full of himself philosopher overjoyed with the fact he can talk riddles around what everyone else says.

Where have I been unclear?

I'm guessing it pertains to descriptions of God or words like atheist or belief. I'm guessing your of Zhavric's fanclub where words have to mean exactly as the bible says them.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime Not to sound rude but can you talk without sounding like its a grad studies seminar program? You write in that fashion that sounds like a very full of himself philosopher overjoyed with the fact he can talk riddles around what everyone else says.

Ad hominem.

Where have I been unclear?

Nowhere. You've clearly stated an argument that we've thoroughly rebutted.

I'm guessing it pertains to descriptions of God or words like atheist or belief. I'm guessing your of Zhavric's fanclub where words have to mean exactly as the bible says them.

ROFLMAO. You really should think carefully about what you post prior to posting it.

[Morality Games]

Not to sound rude but can you talk without sounding like its a grad studies seminar program?

Given I seek a career in academia, I will take that as a compliment.

You write in that fashion that sounds like a very full of himself philosopher overjoyed with the fact he can talk riddles around what everyone else says.

If I were a psychoanalyst, I would say this derives from feelings of jealousy and the resentment that accompanies jealousy. Contrary to yet another attempt to cast me in an antagonistic light, the real purpose of my speech is to communicate complex ideas in the most effective way possible -- it is hardly surprising this way appears similar to the one employed by professional philosophers, who, as a rule of thumb, attempt to explain complex ideas in the most effective way possible.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games Remember, words refer to images -- language attempts to describe the logical structure of images as they appear in the mind's eye...

Words are limited to just images? Words represent concepts, concepts can be either concrete (something directly perceivable) or abstract (which are not directly perceivable).

I'm sort of opposed to your definition of what language attempts to do. Language is not limited to the images we see...

...the real purpose of my speech is to communicate complex ideas in the most effective way possible -- it is hardly surprising this way appears similar to the one employed by professional philosophers, who, as a rule of thumb, attempt to explain complex ideas in the most effective way possible.

If your goal is effective communication then you have to keep two things in mind. Why you want to communicate—your purpose and who you are communicating with—your audience.

You stated your purpose: "communicate complex ideas in the most effective way possible", but I don't think you are keeping your audience in mind. Communication works two ways. Not only do you have to be clear in what you are saying, but you have to make sure that the person you are communicating with understands what you are saying (I need to work on this second part a bit more).

If, as Helio, pointed out, he has trouble understanding what you are saying in your heavy academic tone, it would be the courteous thing to do to write your responses in a less scholarly manner.

There's no point in being here on a public debate forum if you cannot communicate your ideas on a level one can easily understand. If one's goal is to "effectively communicate complex ideas" then one should take effort to communicate complex ideas so that people who may not think as abstractly and as complex as you do can understand them. Otherwise you might as well keep your knowledge to yourself for all the good it will do you.

As a side note, I have always found that many philosophers hide their ideas under complex sentences and high vocabulary levels so that the common mind does not understand the irrational trash they are promoting. In your case I think you may just be emulating the archaic, traditional "academic" way of communicating ideas. Since you are communicating on a much more casual debate forum you can talk much more simply and still get your complex ideas across effectively.

[HelioPrime]

Case example:

Humanist:

How would you define a humanist? Would that still hold true to Pope's from the 14th century that referred to themselves as a humanist?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime How would you define a humanist?

With a definition. If the defintion you offer is different from mine, we can compare evidence to see who has the stronger case. What I wouldn't do is arbitrarily change the definition of Humanist mid-argument to support a stance I've taken.

[Morality Games]

Words are limited to just images? Words represent concepts, concepts can be either concrete (something directly perceivable) or abstract (which are not directly perceivable). I'm sort of opposed to your definition of what language attempts to do. Language is not limited to the images we see...

As a commonly used metaphor in the philosophy of mind (talking about the Correspondence Theory of Truth), 'image' typically refers to any kind of impression (vague idea) or picture (specific idea). Concepts are ideas, or pictures that describe in concrete terms features of reality. The reasoning behind this terminology is that things in the mind reflect objectives to some degree, so they deserve to be called 'images', that is, impressions or pictures. It is from that context I am speaking.

If, as Helio, pointed out, he has trouble understanding what you are saying in your heavy academic tone, it would be the courteous thing to do to write your responses in a less scholarly manner.

I have a stronger case for the way I talk than Helio has for his.

There's no point in being here on a public debate forum if you cannot communicate your ideas on a level one can easily understand. If one's goal is to "effectively communicate complex ideas" then one should take effort to communicate complex ideas so that people who may not think as abstractly and as complex as you do can understand them. Otherwise you might as well keep your knowledge to yourself for all the good it will do you.

I try to do that when necessary, but there are limits to what language can accomplish. The more simplistic you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will miscomprehend the intended meaning of your words. Depending on their complexity, ideas require a certain degree of sophistication in the means of conveyance. Additionally, the hope is that people will respond to the density of my posts by trying to overcome them -- that is, refining their intellects to the point comprehensive language is no obstacle. If they aren't willing to do that, then they aren't worth my time.

As a side note, I have always found that many philosophers hide their ideas under complex sentences and high vocabulary levels so that the common mind does not understand the irrational trash they are promoting.

So you think exactly what Ayn Rand thinks point for point, and probably on basis of just as much study (almost none). Okay.

In your case I think you may just be emulating the archaic, traditional "academic" way of communicating ideas. Since you are communicating on a much more casual debate forum you can talk much more simply and still get your complex ideas across effectively.

Academic language is the most effective language possible for conveying ideas because it is incredibly systematic and rigorous, hence all the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbook definitions. It is because each person has their own private language (aka, their own vocabulary, their own way of speaking and thinking) that they fail to comprehend the 'objectified' language of academia (who are so organized they hold conferences to make agreements to abide by certain meanings in the employment of terms in their field). People usually don't think systematically and rigorously, so they don't speak systematically and rigorously, so they don't comprehend all the vital details and nuances of complex ideas. That is why, if you ask most people to describe their thoughts on justice, excellence, intelligence, society, community, politics, or whatever, you will probably get an open-mouthed stare or some stock stereotype in response.

Academics in general don't try to hide anything from anybody. They employ whatever language they feel best represents their ideas, and as people who have invested the most time and effort into comprehending concepts, they are usually the most qualified for deciding what kind of language is best for conveyance. Anyone can go learn the language of the academics if they are willing to work for it, which is, after much struggle, what I did.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games As a commonly used metaphor in the philosophy of mind (talking about the Correspondence Theory of Truth), 'image' typically refers to any kind of impression (vague idea) or picture (specific idea). Concepts are ideas, or pictures that describe in concrete terms features of reality. The reasoning behind this terminology is that things in the mind reflect objectives to some degree, so they deserve to be called 'images', that is, impressions or pictures. It is from that context I am speaking.

Okay. I understand what you are saying, but I still sort of disagree with the use of 'images'.

The more simplistic you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will miscomprehend the intended meaning of your words. Depending on their complexity, ideas require a certain degree of sophistication in the means of conveyance. Additionally, the hope is that people will respond to the density of my posts by trying to overcome them -- that is, refining their intellects to the point comprehensive language is no obstacle. If they aren't willing to do that, then they aren't worth my time.

The reverse is also true. The more complex you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will not comprehend the meaning of your words whatsoever. I agree that complex ideas require a more complex way of expressing them, however, if clarity and understanding is your goal then you have to write in a way that is easily comprehended while clearly expressing your intended meaning.

So you think exactly what Ayn Rand thinks point for point, and probably on basis of just as much study (almost none).

I actually don't agree with Rand "point for point". I disagree with her views on sex and sexual orientation mainly with a few other minor disagreements.

Furthermore, I acknowledge the fact that I have limited knowledge, I do not know everything. I also believe that claiming that another person's arguments are invalid on the basis of speculation is wrong, unnecessary, and utterly rude.

Academics in general don't try to hide anything from anybody. They employ whatever language they feel best represents their ideas, and as people who have invested the most time and effort into comprehending concepts, they are usually the most qualified for deciding what kind of language is best for conveyance.

Everyone has their right to talk and to express their ideas in whatever manner they want to. However, if one actually wants to engage in an intellectual debate with another person with the aims of changing their perspective or correcting one of their principles, then one must be willing to communicate ideas, no matter how complex, in a manner that enables other people to comprehend what you are saying.

Keeping in mind that you are on a casual, non-academic forum... one should keep their audience in mind and to be courteous to them.

[Morality Games]

The reverse is also true. The more complex you make your way of speaking, the higher probability the audience will not comprehend the meaning of your words whatsoever. I agree that complex ideas require a more complex way of expressing them, however, if clarity and understanding is your goal then you have to write in a way that is easily comprehended while clearly expressing your intended meaning.

Which is what I and academics (in general) do. "Everything should be as complex as necessary, but no more or less than that."

Okay. I understand what you are saying, but I still sort of disagree with the use of 'images'.

The word has an understandable meaning in its field, just like the term 'life' in biology or 'force' in physics, and functions fine once you comprehend the meaning. Intrinistically, a word is just an empty symbol -- it is our power which impresses meaning upon it, not the reverse. Language represents something because beings will it to mean something (refer to an image).

Furthermore, I acknowledge the fact that I have limited knowledge, I do not know everything.

Who knows what you do? But overall, the logical form of Objectivist epistemology does not not acknowledge such limits. When you state you have found the ideal society, the ideal human nature, the ideal economy, the ideal morality, etc, it basically equates to saying you have found the ideal reality, or that you know every abstract of significance. The only thing you don't know is how these abstracts should play out in every particular situation, and that is not a strong restraint.

I also believe that claiming that another person's arguments are invalid on the basis of speculation is wrong, unnecessary, and utterly rude.

I'm not speculating anything. I know what Ayn Rand says other philosophers say, and I know what these philosophers really say, and the two, contrary to her claims, are not the same thing, anymore than Richard Rorty (a pragmatist, albiet one in a different style than myself) accurately represents the views of his opponets, except he is willing to admit this. It is also annoying she thinks the only rational explanation for the behavior of these philosophers is that they are twisted and malevolent, a mentality she seems to have passed along to you.

Everyone has their right to talk and to express their ideas in whatever manner they want to. However, if one actually wants to engage in an intellectual debate with another person with the aims of changing their perspective or correcting one of their principles, then one must be willing to communicate ideas, no matter how complex, in a manner that enables other people to comprehend what you are saying. Keeping in mind that you are on a casual, non-academic forum... one should keep their audience in mind and to be courteous to them.

This seems like a repeat, and I wonder if it really applies to me, since, while I have lost the patience for constant impressing politeness, I'm really not all that rude most of the time. Anyway, in general, my manner of speech isn't that complex -- if it becomes incomprehensible, it isn't because I am playing tricks, but because it is necessary to convey the idea. Some failures are intrinistic to the audience. A mentally handicapped person, for example, utterly lacks even the potential to comprehend certain ideas.

You can't engage in an intellectual debate with someone who abiturarily decides that it is acceptable to change the conventional meaning of a term without explaining in particular (in each and every individual situation) why they deserve do to this, or who is unwilling to admit they don't deserve to do it when they are presented with an argument based on sounder reasoning.