What is your definition of...?

[SalixIncendium]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

 

[Laika]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

It may be the result of so many Americans on here, as there would appear to be a strong emphasis on linguistics and the accuracy of language in 20th century American Philosophy. I looked up American philosophy on Wikipedia one time and it just seemed instantly familiar having done it so many times on RF.
American philosophy | Wikiwand
Analytic philosophy | Wikiwand

If I'm right on that though, its really only a lucky guess than anything else.

 

[Erebus]

A dictionary definition is useful but only gets you so far, especially when a particular word has multiple possible meanings. Also, a lot of words can have specialised meanings within particular groups that may not be adequately expressed by a dictionary definition. Another possibility is that words can have positive or negative connotations that also aren't adequately expressed by a dictionary definition. Finally, dictionary definitions can define words in a manner that is only really relevant to the culture or time period of wherever the dictionary was written. In a forum of people from many different backgrounds and viewpoints, that isn't always helpful.


All in all, establishing definitions at the beginning saves headaches later on. It's easy to get frustrated if the person you're debating with is using a subtly different meaning of a word and neither of you realise it.


Edit

An example of where I'm coming from: If I say, "homosexuality is not normal," I could mean a couple of things. It could be that I'm merely pointing out the relative uncommonness of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Alternatively, I could be condemning homosexuality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A dictionary definition is useful but only gets you so far, especially when a particular word has multiple possible meanings. Also, a lot of words can have specialised meanings within particular groups that may not be adequately expressed by a dictionary definition. Another possibility is that words can have positive or negative connotations that also aren't adequately expressed by a dictionary definition. Finally, dictionary definitions can define words in a manner that is only really relevant to the culture or time period of wherever the dictionary was written. In a forum of people from many different backgrounds and viewpoints, that isn't always helpful.


All in all, establishing definitions at the beginning saves headaches later on. It's easy to get frustrated if the person you're debating with is using a subtly different meaning of a word and neither of you realise it.

Great points! I agree elaboration of the definition of a term is paramount in cases where a more specific meaning based on culture or a group is the case. But do you think asking for personal definitions at the outset of a discussion (or at any other point) invites interpretation that may completely take a different direction to the word's originally universally understood and intended meaning?

 

[HonestJoe]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

I don’t think the issue is personalised definitions as much as personalised contexts; we each see the world slightly differently after all. The meanings of words have always varied depending on context and various words (especially the kind we’re talking about here) have long been used in vastly different contexts with vastly different intentions. You can also have complications added by translations from different languages and different cultures (ancient and contemporary).

Dictionary definitions aren’t a great help. They’ll commonly list multiple definitions, they often use other words which are themselves subject to similar conflicts and different dictionaries will often list subtly but potentially significantly different definitions (especially if you go back to older editions). Anyway, dictionaries are meant to reflect common usage rather than the other way around.

The final problem is that people here are often trying to get across specific complex concepts which may well be like others but have their own unique elements. They may well use existing terms for convenience but have to clarify their specific intention, which can come across as redefining (or at least extending the definition) a word in a way others don’t like.

Edit to add;

But do you think asking for personal definitions at the outset of a discussion (or at any other point) invites interpretation that may completely take a different direction to the word's originally universally understood and intended meaning?

I’ve asked posters what they mean by a word not as an attempt to redefine it but because I believe their misusing it or at least using it without sufficient context. Getting them to explain their concept in their own words is a matter of clarification.

 

[Erebus]

Great points! I agree elaboration of the definition of a term is paramount in cases where a more specific meaning based on culture or a group is the case. But do you think asking for personal definitions at the outset of a discussion (or at any other point) invites interpretation that may completely take a different direction to the word's originally universally understood and intended meaning?

It certainly can lead to people using terms not intended by the author of a thread. However, I would say that this can actually be a positive thing when taking the spirit of exchanging information into consideration. On a religious forum, people may talk about "God" with the intention of only discussing a specific interpretation of the Christian God. That word means something different to, say, a Hindu whose input into the conversation could offer insights into a topic that the OP hadn't considered.

The flip side of this of course is that people are also free to narrow down their definitions from the outset if they wish. "I want to talk about God as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses," for example. In that case, the discussion is based on a much narrower/more specialised definition of the word "God."

Finally, there's the question of whether people should change established definitions to begin with. Honestly, sometimes you have to. Vast as the English language may be, some ideas don't have a pre-allocated word that encapsulates the precise meaning and connotations of said idea. The choice then is to either make up your own or find a best fit. Using the example of God again, a naturalistic Pantheist would use that word to express their views on the universe because they see it as the best fit. While they're not talking about a supernatural, sentient creator, they are talking about the biggest, most powerful thing they can conceive of that they also feel incredible wonder and awe towards.

 

[bobhikes]

The problem is most definitions are very vague.

I use to play a game where I would look up a word and then look up the defining words until I found a clear meaning and you almost always end in a circle.

Faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · hopefulness · hope

What I would do is look of trust and confidence but this definition clues you in to the fact that it will be circular because it lists the synonyms which include trust and confidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

An example of where I'm coming from: If I say, "homosexuality is not normal," I could mean a couple of things. It could be that I'm merely pointing out the relative uncommonness of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Alternatively, I could be condemning homosexuality.

This would be more along the lines of the "personal context" issue to which @HonestJoe was referring. I don't think the definition of any of the words in this statement are being interpreted differently.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It certainly can lead to people using terms not intended by the author of a thread. However, I would say that this can actually be a positive thing when taking the spirit of exchanging information into consideration. On a religious forum, people may talk about "God" with the intention of only discussing a specific interpretation of the Christian God. That word means something different to, say, a Hindu whose input into the conversation could offer insights into a topic that the OP hadn't considered.

Unfortunately, I see this leading more to people talking past each other rather than offering up what god one is specifically referencing.

The flip side of this of course is that people are also free to narrow down their definitions from the outset if they wish. "I want to talk about God as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses," for example. In that case, the discussion is based on a much narrower/more specialised definition of the word "God."

Precisely. I wish people would consider this more when they post. I live by the Toltec philosophy outlined in Don Miguel Ruiz's "The Four Agreements," one of which is "Be impeccable with your word." Sadly the vast majority are not.

 

[Augustus]

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

The problem is rarely comprehension. For that, you don't have to agree on how to use a word, you only have to understand how the person you are communicating with is using that word.

The only times that this becomes a problem is when the point of discussion is the definition itself (or when someone is being unnecessarily pedantic).

 

[SalixIncendium]

The problem is rarely comprehension. For that, you don't have to agree on how to use a word, you only have to understand how the person you are communicating with is using that word.

So you are placing the responsibility of clarification the the reader and not the author?

 

[Augustus]

So you are placing the responsibility of clarification the the reader and not the author?

Both. If you don't understand then just ask.

 

[Stevicus]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

It depends on which word you're talking about, but there are some words for which dictionary definitions can be insufficient.

There are some words which seem vague or subjective. Like if I said, "That's a big house," someone might say "Big? That's not big. How do you define 'big'?"

 

[PureX]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

All language is interpretation. Deal with it.

 

[leibowde84]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

I agree that dictionaries should be used to define words in debate forums ... people's claims about common usage should be ignored as purely subjective without significant evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

All language is interpretation. Deal with it.

I agree. But, in a debate forum it seems necessary to agree to the meanings of important terms. Don't you think? Not necessarily coming to the correct definition, but, instead, merely an agreed upon one.

 

[PureX]

I agree that dictionaries should be used to define words in debate forums ... people's claims about common usage should be ignored as purely subjective without significant evidence.

Dictionaries are constantly being updated to reflect changes in word usage and meaning. Language is a dynamic phenomena. Language is also a universally subjective experience. It's why it works for us. There are no "absolute, inerrant" dictionaries.

 

[PureX]

I agree. But, in a debate forum it seems necessary to agree to the meanings of important terms. Don't you think? Not necessarily coming to the correct definition, but, instead, merely an agreed upon one.

Yes. But that's very often the reason for the debate: to establish clarity of understanding of the issue being debated, to both sides.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. But that's very often the reason for the debate: to establish clarity of understanding of the issue being debated, to both sides.

That is a fair point.

 

[sayak83]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

Well science uses a lot of words with exact technical definitions which are often different from how the word is used in common speech. They are usually found in technical dictionaries. Example
Dictionary of Physics - Oxford Reference

This often creates misunderstandings when journalists try to summarize a scientific paper in a popular post.