Concerning Definitions

[Benpercent]

I ran into this problem today a little bit before metaethics, when I was discussing with my peers how confusing this author (Parfit) was being with certain words. I mentioned that in one case the word "sacrifice" was being used wrongly when the author had his fictional character ask "Why should I sacrifice a near pleasure for a greater pleasure in the future?" because a sacrifice is giving up something greater for something lesser; not the other way around and et cetera.

Two people contested this and said that isn't necessarily true about the concept of sacrifice, but due to my poor hearing I couldn't understand what they said in response. This left me a little tongue-tied, as I didn't know as to how certain and definition a definition of a word must be, and how strictly it must be applied. What I wanted to say was something to the tune was it is certainly the case that a sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value to a lesser value or non-value, and nothing else.

So how do words get their definitions, application range, and set-in-stone-ness?

[Zip]

Check your premise, there are many definitions of sacrifice.

sac·ri·fice /ˈsækrəˌfaɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sak-ruh-fahys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ficed, -fic·ing.

–noun 1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.

2. the person, animal, or thing so offered.

3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

4. the thing so surrendered or devoted.

5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value.

6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner.

–verb (used with object) 7. to make a sacrifice or offering of.

8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.

9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit.

10. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice.

–verb (used without object) 11. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out.

12. to offer or make a sacrifice.

[DavidOdden]

So how do words get their definitions, application range, and set-in-stone-ness?

Words start by being the symbols that represent a concept (every concept must be united under a symbol). So you sort of have to start with how the concept is formed. We don't have a specific concept "white reindeer", we just have the concepts "white" and "reindeer". In a totally mythical world, things could get cold and reindeer could elsd up being more important to our lives. At a certain point, it could become important to distinguish "white reindeer" from "general reindeer" (they fetch a higher price). We can then say "Hey, Aslat, go cut the white reindeers out of the herd", or we could economize and form a specific concept "gabba" (don't ask why that word), and now we have a new word.

Many definitions especially of "natural kinds" are ostensive, that is, it amounts to the knowledge "that is one, this isn't". You really can't "define" dog, though you can explain what one is and even translate it into Latin. Explicit verbal definitions become important when talking about higher order concepts, such as "rights", "law" or "sacrifice". As we have seen, the very boundaries of the concept "rights" have been shifted by people using the word "right" to refer to "the entitlement to receive stolen goods".

One extreme view of the matter is to demand an extremely etymological use of words, so that we should use words the way they were originally used. One problem is that we actually have no idea how that was (one example is "dog" which we think referred to just one specific kind of canine but we don't know which one, and "hound" which use to mean "any dog"). "Meat" used to mean simply "food". The fact is, though, that due to changes in how words are used, "meat" now refers to "flesh" and "dog" now refers to "domestic canines".

Usually, words start out pretty clear and well-defined, but they become murky when people ignore the established meaning of words and start talking metaphorically or worse. The best way to combat that problem is to carefully study word meaning, and not stray from the meaning given in a good printed dictionary. And, I must add, to gently but firmly correct misuses by other people (but please do your homework before doing so). In the case of "sacrifice", observe those instances where a person is claimed to be "sacrificing", and challenge whether it is a sacrifice. That is especially tough, because it often comes up in the context of heroism, where a soldier is killed in the line of duty. Generally, these guys are aware of Patton's speech to the troops in May 1944: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country". Generally, heroes who "sacrifice" have no intention of dying, it just unfortunately works out that way.

[Benpercent]

One extreme view of the matter is to demand an extremely etymological use of words, so that we should use words the way they were originally used. One problem is that we actually have no idea how that was (one example is "dog" which we think referred to just one specific kind of canine but we don't know which one, and "hound" which use to mean "any dog"). "Meat" used to mean simply "food". The fact is, though, that due to changes in how words are used, "meat" now refers to "flesh" and "dog" now refers to "domestic canines".

Ah, so words aren't static at all. I have slipped and forgotten that: words change but not what they represent.

Explicit verbal definitions become important when talking about higher order concepts, such as "rights", "law" or "sacrifice". As we have seen, the very boundaries of the concept "rights" have been shifted by people using the word "right" to refer to "the entitlement to receive stolen goods".

Usually, words start out pretty clear and well-defined, but they become murky when people ignore the established meaning of words and start talking metaphorically or worse. The best way to combat that problem is to carefully study word meaning, and not stray from the meaning given in a good printed dictionary.

So what does one do when someone misuses the definition of a word, but won't admit to it? In my case this afternoon in class, it seemed hopeless to tell my classmates to look in the dictionary, because some of them said some dictionaries are unreliable, and sometimes pull the begging the question fallacy when defining words (assuming a certain philosophical theory is correct, and defining a word accordingly and with bias).

So in other words, showing them a dictionary definition is not enough to convince them. Is this a case where arguing is futile?

[Adrian Hester]

We can then say "Hey, Aslat, go cut the white reindeers out of the herd", or we could economize and form a specific concept "gabba" (don't ask why that word), and now we have a new word.

Lappish, right?

[DavidOdden]

Lappish, right?

Yup.

[agrippa1]

After reading Rand, I try to do three things when using terms to communicate abstract concepts:

First, understand exactly what the concepts mean to me, including concretes subsumed under each concept.

Second, understand exactly what the terms mean to the person I'm talking to.

Third, provide an explicit definition of the term, with a focus on eliminating any disparities in the concept referred to by the term.

Rand's insistence on defining her terms at first seemed redundant to me: after all, words have meaning. But I realized that, especially in cases where a slightly new concept is being explored, the use of an existing term, as long as it's modified meaning is explicitly defined, is an acceptable way to relate the concept.

I feel it's important to understand that disparities in definitions exist, especially as the concepts become more abstract. Just read some topics here and see how people's understanding of terms such as "concept," "entity," and "attribute" differ among those in close philosophical agreement, and with a common source of understanding (i.e., Rand's writings).

It's important to try to maintain the precise meanings of terms, but it's even more important to ensure that the concepts being communicated are clear to both parties, regardless of the terms being used.