Philosophy Now Forum

I don't know myself; I'm sometimes asked what I mean by this or that. I rely on context to get the point across.

I think that a dictionary is useless to clarify the meaning. Fortunately, with my threads, I'm not normally asked to clarify.
If you check one of my threads in the math section, it explains that defining terms actually limits meaning and may limit science progress. Anyways I've said enough so what do you have to say?

PhilX

"Which words would be clearest to a philosopher?"

John Locke: "Tabula rasa."

Paul A. Boghossian: "Transparency."

"Non-existence"

On the other hand, without at least a nodding acquaintance with the dictionary, we are talking to ourselves, each in our private language.

I suppose that may be happening, anyway, even for those who actually know what words mean.

Possibly, that is the definition of 'philosophy'.

Existence and non-existence.

They are also the building blocks of my philosophies.

I think that even if you might be wrong "how" things are, you can always know "that" something exists. So it's a very clear use of words, either it exists or not.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I think that a dictionary is useless to clarify the meaning.

I agree*. The first dictionary (to my knowledge) was written by Samuel Johnson. His method was to travel the length and breadth of the British Isles and ask people to define words. He then refined the different interpretations into a catchall definition that was based on his limited sample and his own experience of the word in question. Even quite bright people think words have some meaning independent of the way they are used. It is as if they were unfamiliar with foreign languages.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:If you check one of my threads in the math section, it explains that defining terms actually limits meaning and may limit science progress.

Missed it. What's the argument?
*agree: To recognise that there are a number of ways in which the premise might be challenged, but that life is too short.

uwot wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I think that a dictionary is useless to clarify the meaning.

I agree*. The first dictionary (to my knowledge) was written by Samuel Johnson. His method was to travel the length and breadth of the British Isles and ask people to define words. He then refined the different interpretations into a catchall definition that was based on his limited sample and his own experience of the word in question. Even quite bright people think words have some meaning independent of the way they are used. It is as if they were unfamiliar with foreign languages.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:If you check one of my threads in the math section, it explains that defining terms actually limits meaning and may limit science progress.

Missed it. What's the argument?
*agree: To recognise that there are a number of ways in which the premise might be challenged, but that life is too short.

Sorry, the thread was actually in the science section. Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13736

Maybe I was being too broad. Clearly though we can do with a smaller dictionary.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Sorry, the thread was actually in the science section. Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13736

Maybe I was being too broad. Clearly though we can do with a smaller dictionary.

While I don't get the numbers thing, I am sort of with you on this. You do get the occasional loon who will cut and paste some 'definition', but who actually learns more than a tiny fraction of the language they use from a dictionary?