-
Defining concepts must be a real challenge. Some people indulge themselves with defining things, concepts, ideas, you name it. It is not a rare case when you ask someone "What is this that you say?" "What do you mean by this?" etc. And the one you ask clears his throat and says:
"Well, the Ultimate reality is..."
"The principle of cause and effect is..."
"Enlightment is..."
"Absolute knowledge is..."
Sometimes I have the impression that the other person deliberately leads the conversation into this point, where I can't help myself asking for definitions. It is like a trap; if I deny the definition, I am accused for kicking away any chance for communication. If I accept the definition, I surrender myself to the other person's argument.
Apart from all these, in many cases definitions seem to serve solely as a means for describing one's thought, while this is only a misuse of definitions. Try dictionaries: would you ever say that the definitions provided in dictionaries are subjective concepts that merely enjoy the approval of the majority? Even if this was really the case, we should either:
1) correct the definition so that it gets more objective (thus expanding this majority to the point that it will include more people who will accept the definition) -or-
2) determine the fallacies of a definition so that people try to think of another definition.
Finally, my point can be summed up as follows: When one says "A = this and that...", in cases that this definition is itself in question,
1) one should explain the reasons why one came up with this definition -and-
2) prepare himself for a battle in the field of metalanguage.
A final addition: If someone says "X is this and that..." I would expect that this definition be final or, at least, thoroughly located within its context.
------------------
-
Good post Vector! Since this is not addressed to any particular person this time around, I guess I can say something. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
Well, as I see it, A=A, surely is a thing that "we" define, but is true to a much greater extent than we think of it as merely a creation of our "own" mental construct. The question is; could we define something that does not already exist?
People, who claim to be enlightened, say that there is something known as "illusions", but the fact is, that illusions also do exist, irrelevant of its illusionary nature.
So, whatever we define should exist in some form or another, and a Mind being a product of nature, simply is capable of discovering, rather than inventing a thought or an idea, and naming it (defining it) to understand and explain.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Defining concepts must be a real challenge<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You just got to know this? It is the most fundamental challenge since we first "discovered" fire. A Natural Mind, came into being for the sole purpose of understand and experiencing its existence. And how else could it do that, but by creating a matter, which could generate a Mind, which can now think, and discover, and define, and understand, and thereby help nature understand itself. What makes one think that s/he is something detached from nature? All our minds put together do nothing more than face this challenge of discovering, experiencing, defining, and understanding, and as a whole, it is Nature that is doing all these things, and basically uses us as the most important tools of Understanding.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is not a rare case when you ask someone "What is this that you say?" "What do you mean by this?" etc. And the one you ask clears his throat and says:
"Well, the Ultimate reality is..."
"The principle of cause and effect is..."
"Enlightment is..."
"Absolute knowledge is..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OR - "Well, what I mean is, if you add a touch of Oregano to your grilled vegetable and cheese sandwich, you could have your pizza that you so love"(ah, but it is not round! So how could one??..???)
OR - "Well, Music is food of the soul, and one cannot be said to be alive, spiritually, if one has not actually tasted it" (now you keep on asking him on what he means by - "actually tasted"?????)
Etc., etc., Yes, are all definitions of expressing ones self. Its only a matter of degree, and values that one gives to whatever he talks about.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sometimes I have the impression that the other person deliberately leads the conversation into this point, where I can't help myself asking for definitions. It is like a trap; if I deny the definition, I am accused for kicking away any chance for communication. If I accept the definition, I surrender myself to the other person's argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody leads you deliberately into a "trap", People simply express themselves, and since you do not understand or might not agree, for whatever reasons (that is not relevant here), for you have a uniquely individual "MIND", you start asking questions. AND questioning is a very fundamental property of the logic imbedded in your Mind, which wants to understand everything that it perceives or thinks it imagines.
You do have to first allow another mind to express himself first, and then question him further to understand him, rather than saying that his theory does not work because you have a different theory which is contradictory to his, and the prevailing majority agree with you. You know, the majority could turn the other way. We have experienced it in the past.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Apart from all these, in many cases definitions seem to serve solely as a means for describing one's thought, while this is only a misuse of definitions. Try dictionaries: would you ever say that the definitions provided in dictionaries are subjective concepts that merely enjoy the approval of the majority? Even if this was really the case, we should either:
1) correct the definition so that it gets more objective (thus expanding this majority to the point that it will include more people who will accept the definition)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry I don't understand this point. Are you feeling ok Vector? I'm just concerned http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/tongue.gif
"....expanding this majority .......which will include more people who will..."
Do you mean expand Majority to become a greater Majority?
Hey! I'm sorry I got to go. will continue later.
-or-
2) determine the fallacies of a definition so that people try to think of another definition.
------------------
....just IMHO though.
[This message has been edited by Sapius (edited September 30, 2001).]
-
Oh, please, take your time!
------------------
-
i agree with vector.
*introspection*
(sheesh, i AM sounding familiar...)
------------------
General Philosophy
-
btw, fyi, sapius--you can post on anything regardless of who the post 'may be addressed to'.
mmmmmkay?
thanks.
------------------
General Philosophy
-
OK, where were we.......?
I change a word from 'him' to 'you' in my previous reply, which now makes proper sense, sorry. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/redface.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Vector: Finally, my point can be summed up as follows: When one says "A = this and that...", in cases that this definition is itself in question,
1) one should explain the reasons why one came up with this definition -and-
2) prepare himself for a battle in the field of metalanguage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I have nothing to say here. I try my best to explain what I mean when I use a 'word' and mean something else other than the meaning found in a dictionary.
At times I make up words to explain myself.
For example:
Since I "believe" that animals are also conscious, (aware of their existence), through their interaction with environment from the moment they open their eyes, the same word does not do justice to a logically aware and self-conscious human who questions his existence with verbal thoughts.
So I drummed up the word - Logiconscious, which I use when talking about humans who are logically aware of their existence.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Shatoush: btw, fyi, sapius--you can post on anything regardless of who the post 'may be addressed to'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK Shatoush, just that is seems impolite. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
....just IMHO though.
