When terms are being used in a way which does not support the most commonly used definitions, should the one using the term in an uncommon way provide an valid argument for the acceptance of his/her uncommon use of that term?

Who here could or would argue with the use of the term ice cream?

Why is any other term treated any differently?

If I were to use the term ice cream in a way which contradicted the known definitions and/or common uses, would I not be responsible for giving a valid argument for another to accept that use?

I have been fooled by the term "Ice Cream". When following the crowd after the announcement "Let's go get Ice Cream" I found the end location led to the a purveyor of "Frozen Yogurt". Ice, being a descriptive term, means little when the object has no actual cream. The descriptive term "creamy" means little when the object of one's desires is the cream itself.

When it comes to philosophical notions such as things like "spirit" there can be no hard-core definition. In fact, to attempt to define it precisely would refute its meaning.

For example, if I define "spirit" as the underlying essence of life that is genuinely undefinable, then by that very definition I have demanded that it be undefinable with any further precision.

This is an inherent problem with all notions of spirituality.

Just look at the "Tao". It is defined as that which is unnamable, yet there is is with a name, it's called the "Tao".

The problem with working with concepts that cannot be 'named' or 'specifically defined' is inherent in the very nature of the concept.

The Hindus have the best approach I think. They simply say, "Tat Tvam Asi" which means, "You are That".

In other words, if you were to ask them "What is spirit?", they would simply say, "You are that."

This assumes that if you know what you are, then you also know what spirit is. Because spirit is simply another term that refers to the underlying essence of all that exists.

In fact, there's a definition that might be workable:

Spirit - The underlying essence of all that exists.

Using this definition no one could deny spirit because clearly all of existence necessarily must have an underlying essence. So by using this definition we force "spirit" to be real.

I think there are two ways to look at semantics.

The Argumentative Approach

Approach it with the idea that you are going to debate against it and thus you are seeking something concrete to denounce.

The Philosophical Approach

Simply consider the concept for whatever it is worth to you as an individual and take what works for you and leave the rest behind.

I'm personally not interested in the debate approach. I perfer to just consider ideas for whatever they are worth to me personally and for whatever they might be worth to the people with whom they are shared.

From my point of view semantics is a personal matter. I allow people to use whatever semantics they want, as long as the explain what it is they are attempting to convey then I can accept their semantics (although I may not embrace their semantics personally).

Again, I think it comes down to the goals in mind.

Is the goal to uderstand where a person is coming from?

Or is the goal to set out to prove them wrong and denounce their point of view as being illogical and nonsensical based on technicalities associated with defintions that have been forced into a straight-jacket?

I see no reason to take such an adversarial approach to discussions of philosophy. Just take what works, and leave the rest.

Alrighty then...

Some want to be able to make some incredulous claim without shouldering the burden of proof, and others love philosophy for other reasons.

Some like criticism done well and see it as an avenue for development, and some see it as a name-calling contest.

Some use rhetoric to motivate and pursuade, and others see through it.

Some find logic to be the most reliable form of value assessment we have for language-based claims, and others have illogical claims which are so plentiful that they become amalgamated into those which are not, rendering the person at a loss to know the difference between them.

As I see it, there can be no such thing as a "burden of proof" in philosophy. If any philosophy could be "proven" it would no longer be philosophy but instead it would be a scientifically verified discovery.

This is precisely why philosophy does not require proof. If it did, it would be science. So there can be no such thing as a 'burden of proof' in philosophy.

At best, all that a philosopher should ever be required to show is convincing plausibility. And then, when that has been accepted, it should be accepted for precisely what it is: a plausible idea, and not something that has been proven to be true.

For me, this is the essence of philosophy. If you can show a plausible idea, then you have an interesting philosophy.

If you can prove your idea, then you have a scientific discovery.

First off, I'd like to commend Metalwing for his beautifully concise example of a perfectly valid argument with the use of the term ice cream. Well done Metal

Now I'd like to take that a bit father by simply asking the question "What should be done when one whishes to express an idea that has no word(s) with commonly accepted definitions that mean what one wishes to express?"

I see this often becoming a bone of contention - not only here in this forum, but in life in general...

One has an idea in their head and wishes to express that idea. But there are no "commonly accepted definitions" that correlate exactly to the idea one wishes to express. So, one tries using words in a way that will come as close as possible to the intended meaning.

But then all to often what happens is, such expression is met with "that's nonsense because that's not what those words mean". There is no attempt to recognize that there are no "commonly accepted definitions for words" which can express the exact meaning. And so the expression is labeled "nonsense". But in actual fact, it is the interpretation that is nonsense - not the intended meaning.

Reminds me of these tostadas whose package was labeled "Fresh" but whose shelve life was given in years. Fresh how?


--------------------


I heard someone the other day say "There ain't no such thing as thanksgiving eve!!! There Christmas Eve, and New Years Eve - but there ain't no Thanksgiving Eve!". I was baffled by the apparent idiocy of this statement, because to me every day has an eve... but then I realized she meant it in a 'officially recognized, labeled-with-capital-letters holiday", and I suppose she was right.

Our language is littered with phrases whose meaning-as-a-phrase is separate from the meaning it ought to have, based on the components of the phrase.

'Accepted use' is defined by people, even if the people are sloppy thinkers, and even if they have an agenda. I think the most important thing is to be clear (with oneself and with others) about how the word/phrase is being used at the time.

dont think you need a valid argument to use a word differently, but if you are not using the common definition you should define what definition you are using.

The meanings of words and word usage begins with language that people create and use. The definitions come later and they depend on how people actually use the words.

In other words, it is the people who use the words who actually develop the language, not some guy writing a dictionary.

When words are being used that are not in the dictionary, such as slang, eventually they must be added to the language and added to the dictionary so that others can look them up and get some idea of what they mean and how they are used.

This being the case, if a word is used by one group to mean one thing and by another to mean another thing, both meanings must be acknowledged.

If I use a word among a group of my peers and we all understand what that word means to us, yet it is not defined in the dictionary in the way that we have been using it, it is up to the writers of the dictionary to catch up to the languages being used. This is how language is developed.

If the person using a word in a different way among others who use the same word differently, they may want to define what they mean by that word so that they can be understood. But s/he does not need to present a "valid argument" for the acceptance of that word by the others. It is enough that they come to an understanding of how the word is being used. They do not need to accept it and begin using the word that way themselves.

Language is created by the people speaking it. And yes, if you want, you can make up your own words. People do it all the time. And yes, the same word, especially in the English and American English language can mean different things.

Yes, words do indeed have a wide berth of meaning. In fact, on a poetic note that's a great thing!

I use my thesaurus quite a bit just for the sake of chosing words that convey a certain mood. I might have a whole list of words that can be used to mean the same thing. In fact I just did it for the word "Spirit" and this is what I got back:


mettle
heart
chutzpah
determination
moral fiber
fortitude
force
strength of mind
will
guts
character
courage
strength
soul
inner self
life-force
psyche
core
chi
essence
ghost
ghoul
apparition
specter
general feeling
attitude
mood
tendency
atmosphere
poltergeist
phantom


So I can see where someone could easily be mislead by that word alone.

This is true with all words.

The real question is why does the other person seek a specific meaning or definition.

From the OP we have:



Responsible?

I wouldn't ask whether or not you were being 'responsible'. I would simply ask whether or not you are "interested" in communicating your idea.

If you know that your use of a term is uncommon then you would do yourself a favor by explaining it, thus communicating your idea better.

I'm well aware that when I use the term "spirit" in a Western context people can easily take this to be referring to ideas associated with Western Religions (maingly the Abrahamic religions).

Therefore when I used the term "spirit" when speaking to people who are unfamiliar with how I use the term, I am always careful to further explain that I'm using it in a mystical Eastern sense simlar to the the Tao. When speaking with scientists I often offer that I see spirit and quantum field to have much in common. That's not mean to be a concrete definition for the purpose of 'arguments' but rather it's simply offered as a helpful idea for the purpose of communication.

As far as "responsibilty" goes, the only responsible is for whomever is attempting to communicate.

If the person who is offering the term is interested in communication they may expound on the term. If the listener is not sure of what is being meant, they can always ask for an elaboration of the term.

The goal should be communication, not to argue over semantics.

At least that would be how I would approach it.

I cannot believe that there is a genuine question on why it is important for a word to be used correctly...

No burden of proof in philosophy???



Yeah! No scientific method in science either...

I guess you missed the whole point.

Words belong to the people who use them. The only important thing is to be understood. If using the word "correctly" accomplishes that, then you should use the word "correctly." But "correctly" can mean different things sometimes, to different people.

Even if you look a word up in a dictionary, you are going to find several different meanings for it. The dictionary may not even have all the different meanings or uses for that word. Even if the word is used "correctly" misunderstandings happen.

I try to write very clearly, honestly, and to the point. I use complete sentences. I try to use words correctly. But still some people misunderstand what I am trying to say.

I did not miss it, I just see it as invalid, regardless of it's utility for conveying an idea. Language has specific meaning for good reason.

Just because a large group of people call something by the wrong name does not make that a correct usage of that name.

Bell overture within a sizable ordinance whereas later cookie?

That is the point!

Can you cite a philosophy that has been proven?

I didn't realize that any philosophy had ever been proven.

"You anti-semantic bastard." - Hugh Laurie

Learn what it means and how it applies, then come back and discuss it further.

And then there is my Italian friend Don. In one discussion about ice cream he informed me that the only "real ice cream" was gelato, which had a higher fat content and less air content. When I explained to him after considerable argument "Don, why don't you just refer to gelato as gelato and ice cream as ice cream?" He blew his stack and reiterated the "fact" that only gelato was true ice cream and the usual crap sold in America should get a different name.
His theory was that ice cream had to have certain proportions to exist and the only true proportions were those which created gelato.

order a pepperoni pizza in italy and you'll get a pizza topped with grean peppers and nothing that resembles meat. you want what pizza hut calls pepperoni you order sausage. eees true.