What words mean

It is my opinion that it is extremely important to respect the meaning of words.

You cannot redefine words to fit your definition of something. You have to define that something according to the words that are available and what meanings these words convey. Otherwise meaningful communication becomes impossible.

This is a simple observation that most will agree is correct, so one shouldn't think that this post is neccesary at all.. But it is. I see alot of misinterpretation of words, and arguments that go across pages of posts and days and weeks in time because someone went off the reservation and tried to define a word to serve their ends....

Well, your use of the word red in either context is in keeping with the meaning of the word, so thats beside the point.

What I mean is that through uncritical use words can take on meanings that they were never intended to have. And when that happens they can be used in contexts where they are meaningless.

An example, which I have been arguing in another thread, is the verb "to exist".
If you use that word about abstract ideologies it is kind of meaningless. You can say that entities or objects exist, either now, in the past or in the future. But people mis-use the word and apply it to ideas and patterns of thought as if these were things that are subject to the distinction existence/non-existence.

I am sure there are better examples as well, that I cannot think of now.

Yes, but how so, given that the meanings are unrelated?

It is my opinion that it is extremely important to respect the meaning of words.

You cannot redefine words to fit your definition of something. You have to define that something according to the words that are available and what meanings these words convey. Otherwise meaningful communication becomes impossible.

This is a simple observation that most will agree is correct, so one shouldn't think that this post is neccesary at all.. But it is. I see alot of misinterpretation of words, and arguments that go across pages of posts and days and weeks in time because someone went off the reservation and tried to define a word to serve their ends....

If it is my opinion that determines what a word means (which is absurd) then it is impossible for me to misinterpret a word, since any word means what I think it means "in my opinion".

The way I see it, you can relate anything to the concept of existence, but not all relations you establish have any function.

If you state that an idea exists, that consideration doesn't really reveal anything new. It is a needless and useless observation to make, since the existence of the idea is a neccesity for you to relate to it in the first place.

So any discussion about the existence of an idea isn't really about that. It seems to me that the real question that is posed is wether or not the idea expresses to our satisfaction what it intends to express.

And yes, you can make the distinction existence and being, but does that distinction serve to clarify or confuse? My opinion is the latter.

Razzleg wrote:

Yes, but how so, given that the meanings are unrelated?

The use of the word in each context provides distinctions that serve to clarify and increase the depth of the communication.

Nonsense, we all "redefine" words constantly. To use words at all is often to use them in different contexts. Use the word "red" in a political conversation and then enter into an exchange with an interior designer and use it again, and you are likely to encounter completely different meanings of the same word that have very little relation to one another, if you ignore the historical aspect. However, neither use constitutes a "misuse".

But the term "depth" seems to imply degrees of meaning that a literal definition would not allow for.

On the other hand, you have yet to critically attend to the idea of a use without intent in your above quote.

Quote:

But the term "depth" seems to imply degrees of meaning that a literal definition would not allow for.

The depth of the communication, not individual words. "Red curtains" is a communication of greater detail or depth than just "curtains".
"Existing curtains" is not a communication of greater detail or depth, because making the specification that the curtains you want have to exist is kind of useless.

Razzleg wrote:

On the other hand, you have yet to critically attend to the idea of a use without intent in your above quote.

Kant said "existence" is not a predicate? Well, since that is a grammatical classification of a word in relation to another, it's not entirely accurate to say that. In the phrase "I exist", exist is the predicate that modifies the subject (I).
In the phrase "Existence is tough", existence is the subject, and "is hard" the predicate.

But neither of these usages constitutes a misuse of the phrase, nor does the intent modify the meaning of the word.

But neither of these usages constitutes a misuse of the phrase, nor does the intent modify the meaning of the word.

Razzleg wrote:

Nonsense, we all "redefine" words constantly. To use words at all is often to use them in different contexts. Use the word "red" in a political conversation and then enter into an exchange with an interior designer and use it again, and you are likely to encounter completely different meanings of the same word that have very little relation to one another, if you ignore the historical aspect. However, neither use constitutes a "misuse".

This is absurdity, and ignores the communication function of words. If you use the word red to describe someone who is a politically conservative capitalist (and you know that), you will have wilfully lied and will have wilfully subverted the communication function of the word. If you tell your interior designer that your bed linen is red when in fact it is the color generally known as green, you will have once again wilfully lied and wilfully subverted the communication function of the word.

There is and always has been a dynamic tension between standard usage and neologism. However, this mild conflict is resolved through the consensus acceptance of neologism. If you attempt a neologism and it is not accepted, then your word fails to be a tool of communication. Language only works for communication to the extent that we all understand what is meant by the use of a word.

Setanta wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

Nonsense, we all "redefine" words constantly. To use words at all is often to use them in different contexts. Use the word "red" in a political conversation and then enter into an exchange with an interior designer and use it again, and you are likely to encounter completely different meanings of the same word that have very little relation to one another, if you ignore the historical aspect. However, neither use constitutes a "misuse".

This is absurdity, and ignores the communication function of words. If you use the word red to describe someone who is a politically conservative capitalist (and you know that), you will have wilfully lied and will have wilfully subverted the communication function of the word. If you tell your interior designer that your bed linen is red when in fact it is the color generally known as green, you will have once again wilfully lied and wilfully subverted the communication function of the word.

There is and always has been a dynamic tension between standard usage and neologism. However, this mild conflict is resolved through the consensus acceptance of neologism. If you attempt a neologism and it is not accepted, then your word fails to be a tool of communication. Language only works for communication to the extent that we all understand what is meant by the use of a word.

My example was overly simplistic, i agree, but its purpose was for illustration, not as a literal semantic equivalent. The word "red" has both a practical and a metaphorical application. And the difference between the two can be established by insisting upon the difference between the strictly empirical and the historical metaphor.

If you want to use an abstract term like "existence", however, i challenge you to use it in a way that may not be contested. As the subject of argument, abstracts must be ensured by a "logical" warrant if they are to be successfully "communicative". Imagine, for example, two people debating the definition of the term "red" as it applies politically. Each interlocutor will place the "meaning horizon" in their own place. And still no word misuse will have occurred. If you think that all philosophical arguments are subject to an empirical test, then you are mistaken. The use of certain words is not sufficient to establish meaning, the context (ie the way in which they are used) is also necessary.

i have no idea what this means. Perhaps i am being a bit thick, but this entire passage seems like word salad to me.

Quote:

i have no idea what this means. Perhaps i am being a bit thick, but this entire passage seems like word salad to me.

I'll try to state it clearer.
If you walk into a shop and want to buy a lamp, you walk to the counter and say to the guy behind it: "I want to buy a lamp".

Then communication between you and the shopkeeper is established. He knows why you are there, and your purpose for coming in is being fullfilled.
Now, if you don't want just any random lamp, if you have ideas about what it should look like, based on the surroundings you intend to put it in, for instance, you would want to communicate those ideas to the shopkeeper so that he can better understand what you want and find the best alternative he has for you.
So you continue: "I want a red lamp." The addition of "red" into the statement adds detail to the communication. Addition of that word allowed you to communicate more precicely what you want.
Get it now?
But if you had said you want a slow lamp? The introduction of the word "slow" doesn't add a meaningful distinction in the communication about the lamp.

So, if you keep this in mind, and then consider the question "does free will exist", perhaps you will see that the information that is being requested with this question isn't being supplied by any answer you can give to it. The introduction of the word "exist" doesn't add a meaningful distinction in the communication about free will.
For what is free will? It is an idea. A concept. Us being able to make reference to it in the question "does free will exist" is proof enough that the concept exists.

So what is really being asked?
The real question, the actual information that is being sought, is an answer to wether or not the concept of free will serves to explain what it proposes to explain.

It is a very common mistake to make, and that's why so many seem to think it is correct.
It's the same as people using the phrase "I could care less" when they actually mean "I couldn't care less". It's something as strange as a popular mistake. But a little consideration of the meaning of the words included should make it easy to see what is correct and what is not.