Words, Concepts, Definitions

[Thales]

*** Mod's note: Split from another thread ***

The definition of a word or a phrase is not decided by how you or a minority of people use it, but by how the general population understand the word to mean.

Ouch, that's like finger nails on a chalk board to me, Moebius. A word (concept) is defined by its referents in reality, and is not a matter of how a population views it. The bridge between the metaphysical and epistemological is the concept "unit", and "units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships." [iTOE, expanded edition, page 7]

For instance I could denote the term "beef" as to mean only the filet mignon, and then proceed to argue that all other cuts, be it shank or brisket, cannot be considered beef.

You mean it's too narrowly defined.

When using "Western Civilization" it’s a sort of rule of thumb way to point to certain Western achievements. When it gets right down to it what we're really talking about is the dominance of reason in human affairs, and all that comes from that. So in a certain sense it's very simple. However, the devil is in the details, and deriving and defending the proper methods of reasoning is no simple task.

Edited June 30, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added split notice

[Moebius]

Ouch, that's like finger nails on a chalk board to me, Moebius. A word (concept) is defined by its referents in reality, and is not a matter of how a population views it. The bridge between the metaphysical and epistemological is the concept "unit", and "units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships." [iTOE, expanded edition, page 7]

Fairly enough. But then I must ask -- whose referents to reality? The bottom line is that languages aren't objective, but rather subjective and arbitrary. When most people refer to reality with a particular word, that becomes its definition. Otherwise you would have a situation where anybody can take a word and refer it to anything in reality and call that the definition.

You mean it's too narrowly defined.

Was that unclear?

When using "Western Civilization" it’s a sort of rule of thumb way to point to certain Western achievements. When it gets right down to it what we're really talking about is the dominance of reason in human affairs, and all that comes from that. So in a certain sense it's very simple. However, the devil is in the details, and deriving and defending the proper methods of reasoning is no simple task.

Actually I think where the West achieved is the attempt to lay down basic principles derived from reason, and necessarily in the use of reason. I mean, obviously all civilizations used reasons -- it's a natural human tool. You can't build the pyramids or the great wall with primitive tools without some sort of highly developed sense of reason.

So yes, if you were talking purely on the strength of its philosophy, I have no problems with saying "the philosophies of reason developed by the Western culture is superior to Eastern philosophy". Again, my qualm has always been that the term "Western culture" does not mean only "the philosophies of reason" in the daily vernacular.

[Thales]

Fairly enough. But then I must ask -- whose referents to reality?

Think of it this way, if the majority of people believe that an alligator is a puppy dog the survival rate of people isn't going to be too high. Words get their meaning from reality.

The bottom line is that languages aren't objective, but rather subjective and arbitrary.

Languages are primarily required for man to think, and the validity of the concepts we hold determines how well we will survive.

When most people refer to reality with a particular word, that becomes its definition. Otherwise you would have a situation where anybody can take a word and refer it to anything in reality and call that the definition.

A word that is severed from reality is worse than useless, it's dangerous. So, I don't agree at all with your point. Reality has to be the standard, not the human population. Granted, it's immensely valuable for everyone to be on the same page, because that allows for transmission of knowledge between people, but the knowledge, to be valuable, must be anchored in the real world. That's the first and most important test.

The benefits of a rational society are that if most everyone is rational, the knowledge they transmit will be better, thus magnifying the value of society to each of its members.

RE: "You mean it's too narrowly defined."

Was that unclear?

No, I was just reaffirming your point.

Actually I think where the West achieved is the attempt to lay down basic principles derived from reason, and necessarily in the use of reason. I mean, obviously all civilizations used reasons -- it's a natural human tool. You can't build the pyramids or the great wall with primitive tools without some sort of highly developed sense of reason.

It's a natural human tool, but identifying it for what it is is vital to the advance of man, otherwise people may go around believing in witches and unicorns. Many societies have viewed knowledge as being something that is just given to us from a higher realm. It's the all knowing oracle view of knowledge. The Aristotelian way of viewing knowledge, that we must process the evidence of our senses logically and bring in harmony the thoughts inside our head, with the evidence outside our head is a view we take for granted today, but it did not always exist.

So yes, if you were talking purely on the strength of its philosophy, I have no problems with saying "the philosophies of reason developed by the Western culture is superior to Eastern philosophy". Again, my qualm has always been that the term "Western culture" does not mean only "the philosophies of reason" in the daily vernacular.

There is much of the West that is horrendously bad, and, in fact, Kantianism is on the other end of the spectrum. Kant subverted reason at its core, by promoting an epistemology that he claimed was required for valid thought, which in fact directly destroyed valid thought. St. Augustine attacked Greek thought and science and promoted the idea that real knowledge comes directly from god.

[DavidOdden]

Think of it this way, if the majority of people believe that an alligator is a puppy dog the survival rate of people isn't going to be too high. Words get their meaning from reality.

...

A word that is severed from reality is worse than useless, it's dangerous. So, I don't agree at all with your point. Reality has to be the standard, not the human population.

This is an important point that's hard for many people to get, so I think it may deserve a bit of amplification. What is primary is "reality", the various existents out there -- alligators, crocodiles, hippos, bunny rabbits, reindeer, whatever. Whether anyone is aware of these animals doesn't affect their existence. The formation of a particular concept is secondary to the existent: the existents must first be perceived, compared, and grouped in some way, so that we distinguish alligators and crocodiles on the one hand from bunnies and reindeer; then if we want we can distinguish alligators and crocodiles, if it serves a purpose to do so, and bunnies and reindeer. We could even distinguish white reindeer (gabba, in Saami) from yellow-grey ones (čuoivvat) if it were useful. Conceptual differentiation and integration precede labelling -- you don't go about saying "I've got this word 'puppy', what can I apply it to? Oh, look there is a long green thing with big jaws, I'll call it a 'puppy'.".

We're almost always talking about existing words and their concepts. The definitions of the concepts and the relationships between the things in reality that the concept refers to are already historically established. Fait accompli. It's done, so live with it. Then...

Granted, it's immensely valuable for everyone to be on the same page, because that allows for transmission of knowledge between people, but the knowledge, to be valuable, must be anchored in the real world.

Man's first technological breakthrough was the creation of this system that allows knowledge of anything to be transmitted non-genetically and very rapidly. This allows us to build skyscrapers and jets, and write fine literature and the instructions for building chairs to sit in while reading. It would be highly disfunctional to jumble up the established relationship between symbols and referents, if for example somebody decides arbitrarily that "puppy" should refer to actual alligators when told to go buy a puppy for Billy. The meaning of a word (referents in the flesh) is a fact, an aspect of reality, a fact that children and foreigners need to learn, and a fact that native speakers should not forget if they start to misidentify the facts. However, these are conventional facts, not intrinsic facts about the relationship between sound and referent. Over time, the conventions can change.

[RichardParker]

As others on this thread have already pointed out, it is a serious error to claim that concepts are mere arbitrary conventions, determined somehow by majority vote or opinion. Such a claim essentially reduces the essential characteristic of man’s consciousness—his ability to form abstractions by retaining the fundamental characteristic of a class of particulars, while simultaneously ignoring their differences—to mere arbitrary utterances.

What roots concepts in reality is not the arbitrary whim of any collective mob, but the identification of specific and unique properties of particular things, characteristics that are fundamental and distinguish members of particular classes from all other things. A characteristic is fundamental when it causally explains all or most of the other characteristics of a particular class.

When we look at man we see that he has developed languages, that he has built civilizations, cities, cars, planes, developed physics and medicine, etc. All of these characteristics are causally related to one fundamental characteristic that explains them all--his rational faculty. When we look at birds we see that they migrate across enormous distances, that they escape from predators and are predatory in the air, that they build nests high on tries, rooftops, mountains and cliffs, etc. The fundamental characteristic(s), the characteristic(s) that explains all of this and that distinguishes birds from all other living things are feathers and wings, giving birds the power of flight.

This process of forming concepts from particular perceptual concretes, of identifying and abstracting common and fundamental characteristics is the essential characteristic of man’s consciousness. Without this process of forming abstractions (or universals), man’s consciousness would be reduced to mere perception.

On a more fundamental level, the view that concepts are merely the arbitrary convention of social groups represents the epistemological error of the supremacy of consciousness and, metaphysically, implies the very negation of causation. In this view, there really is no such thing as essential or fundamental characteristics at all because there really is no such thing as causation. The only reason why we expect a ball to fall when dropped from a tower is because we have developed the habit to believe that the ball will fall—the ball could just as easily grow wings and fly. Because there is no such thing as causation, there can be no identification of causal (or fundamental) characteristics--concepts are therefore mere arbitrary convention. This is almost pure David Hume.