I could be wrong on this, but I’ve always thought of words as nothing more than identifiers and expressions which we use to convey our thoughts, judgement, and utilize volition.
Well often different words/phrases can identify the same existent/concepts, but have different semantical meanings. To use the classic RAW example, if you went into a restaurant and were offered ‘a bloody hunk of meat chopped off a castrated bull’ you might not find it too appealing, whereas a ‘hamburger’ may do more to whet your appetite.
True, but the fact remains that words don’t change the identity of the obect. In your above example, you could use both references in an ATTEMPT to change the identity of the hamburger. It still doesn’t change the fact that it indeed is still a hamburger and what it used to be.
I’m sorry poohat. What I meant to say was this: Your definition of the word “valid” is meaningless in relation to reality. By that definition, the word makes no implications as to the conclusion which is the topic of this discussion. In any case, your arguement remains irrellivent.
As for this:
…her point was that the word ‘selfish’ referenced a hodgepodge of distinct and unrelated concepts without any clear unity, hence making the concept of ‘selfishness’ (in standard usage) invalid.
this is simply not so. Her point was that the word ‘selfish’ was being used to provoke an emotion about one thing while actually referring to another. The usage of the word selfish was quite well planned, not by any means a hodgebodge.
Uh, no, I have no problem with formal logic. I don’t know where you got that idea! I think it’s great as a means of identifying reality, but it shouldn’t be taken as an end in itself.
I’m going to leave it at that, because while I do think the terminology is flawed, I don’t think it’s a major issue. Like I said, insofar as it’s problematic, it’s more a symptom of rationalism than a cause in itself. It is possible to automatize multiple uses of “valid”, if you’ve dealt with it enough. Once you do that, I don’t think it’s a serious issue. But it’d be better if you didn’t have to integrate contradictory meanings for a single term in the first place.
I should add that I think it’s problematic that the vast majority of philosophy is written at a level that the lay-person can’t understand. Philosophy, generally, doesn’t deal with a really specialized subject-matter. The facts which give rise to philosophical concepts and principles are available to everybody – unlike, say, the facts that give rise to quantum mechanics. So, while there’s room for exploring really technical issues in philosophy, it shouldn’t be the primary focus of the field. Philosophy is for living; it’s not an isolated mind-game. When the field gets to the point where the majority of its publications are incomprehensible to anyone but a handful of specially trained academics, something has gone seriously wrong.
By the way, Halley, I think Poohat’s description of Rand’s rejection of “selfish” was basically right. I’d just point out that the term, in its common use, integrates *entities* which aren’t essentially similar, rather than concepts.
In a sense I am discussing semantics, but there are times when one ought to discuss semantics. Rand was right to discuss the semantics of “selfish”. Why? Because we think in language, and so words matter.
The logical fallacy of argument from “it’s just semantics”insists that, at least where it’s applied, words do not matter. For validation of this claim, I refer you to Poohat’s post.
