Let's talk about what constitutes being a proper definition. We ought keep something in mind here. Some things are created within our mind and some things are not. We define all of these things.

For effective communication, consensus is what is needed for a definition.

Diet and exercise result in the constitution for proper definition. And people call me Webster, I have such definition.

definition is what your own mind creates. there is a common definition of most things, but that is defined by how you interpret it.

To me a definition is the meaning of something that is widely accepted as the true meaning...

Agreed.

Definitions that people can't agree upon are useless.

So consensus is truly the paramount factor if communication is the goal.

A proper definition is the goal. Does consensus result in a proper definition?

Is there such a thing as a false meaning?

Who's to say what a "proper definitions" is?

"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard Feynman

Definitions themselves are made up of words, each of which needs to be defined precisely using other words. Ultimately it becomes a circular endeavor to attempt to create an absolute system that has a rock solid foundation that everyone will agree on.

Words themselves are nothing more than symbols that humans have created in an attempt to convey their ideas. So the conveyance of ideas is the foundation for the words themselves.

Therefore if you want to understand someone's idea it's best to ask them what they mean by a particular word, rather than looking for a particular dictionary definition to shove that down their throat in a hostile act. That would defeat the whole purpose of communication in the first place.

Go for understanding and let the semantic wars be fodder for war lords who have no interest in understanding.

That's how I personally view the whole semantic issue. Just tell me how you use a word. I'll tell you how I use it. Then instead of arguing semantics let's just see if we can comprehend each others ideas. That's the whole purpose of language in the first isn't it?

I would personally just say, "a definition is the meaning of something that is widely accepted" and leave it at that. No need to place a truth value on it at all.

Words are meant to convey ideas. Where does the notion that "truth values" must be placed on these ideas?

Unicorn is a valid word. Everyone conjures up an image created by the idea that this word represents. Does unicorn have a 'truth value'.

I would imagine that many people have a totally different idea in their mind's eye of what represents a 'unicorn' from the idea that I conjure up when I hear that word.

I just searched for dictionary definitions of unicorn. I already came up with two different definitions:

1. A mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

That's a pretty simple definition.

2. A heraldic representation of such an animal, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, and a lion's tail.

A goat's beard and a lion's tail? Humm? I never heard that one before.

Also does a unicorn have wings or fly?

This artist apparently thinks not. No wings on this unicorn:



This artist believes that unicorns can fly obviously:



So which is the ultimate 'truth'?

Well obviously different people associate different ideas for the same word.

So rather than force strict semantics onto them, why not just recognize that different people have different ideas of what unicorn means?

Just ask them what it means to them and you will have learned something.

Anyone who understands the notion of a proper definition?



This conclusion is invalid.

Words are symbols... granted. Words can convey ideas... granted. However, it does not follow that the conveyance of ideas is the foundation for the words themselves. That would require all words be founded upon ideas themselves and they are not. The Papaya tree in my yard is not an idea. It is the basis for the name "papaya tree". In fact, the conclusion also clearly goes against current knowledge and the very act of accruing knowledge. There are many many complex ideas which are a product of language itself - calculus comes to mind. There are many things which are not a product of language but require complex language in order to be understood. The universe comes to mind. Therefore, we can know that all ideas do not necessarily come prior to or independent of the language that describe them. Because we can know that, we can also know that ideas are not necessarily the foundation for the words themselves.


--


On another line of thought, regarding the cases where ideas are the foundation...

What are the ideas of? IOW what are the individual elements of thought/belief that, when combined, constitute being an idea? It is clear those elements are the basis of ideas and therefore the basis of the words. An idea without content would be empty.Most people call that content, assuming it is external of the thinking subject - objective reality; that which we become aware of that is not subject to our thought/belief and/or language. Rather that which language aims to describe. Which brings me to the notion of what constitutes a proper definition...

One which correctly identifies properties belonging to the object in question and does not confuse that which belongs to the object with the terms being attributed to them. IOW...

We do not call the sun a "tree" because that is not a proper definition.

I also find it rather silly to invoke mystical creatures which are purely objects of the imagination in order to talk sensibly about the importance of definitions.

The last pic is a pegasus, by the way, just to be clear.



Oops. I stand corrected. It is indeed a unicorn, because the imaginary pegasus was simply a winged white horse...

From yet another perspective, logically speaking... the form is invalid.

p1Words themselves are nothing more than symbols that humans have created in an attempt to convey their ideas.
C So the conveyance of ideas is the foundation for the words themselves.

It's begging the question. Affirming the consequent. Circular reasoning. It presupposes the conclusion in the premiss.

Well, I understand what a proper definition is and therefore I realize that proper definitions would need to be subjective. So they would need to be dynamic and malleable with respect to context.

We even see the the publishers of dictionaries attempting to deal with this abstract nature of words by often listing several definitions for any given word in an attempt to address whatever contextual situations they can imagine at the time of their writing.



I disagree.



I disagree. Just because the "papaya tree" exists in physical manifestation does not mean that it gave rise to the word. It actually gave rise to an idea, and that idea was then converted into a word.




I disagree that calculus is a product of language. On the contrary we have hardcore proof otherwise.

At the time that calculus was originally being formulated Newton and Leibniz independently came up with very similar ideas.

Newton call them "fluxions" and had his own symbolic notation for them. Leibniz called them "derivatives" and used the symbols dy/dx. They were precisely the same ideas, yet Newton and Leibniz arbitrarily chose totally different words and symbols to symbolize these ideas.

So clearly the words are just the symbols chosen to convey the ideas, and they are clearly not the ideas themselves.

I stand my ground on my claim that words and language are merely an expression of ideas and not to be confused with the actual ideas themselves.



Again I disagree with your view. And I turn to Richard Feynman once again:

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." - Richard Feynman

I'm in agreement with Richard Feynman's point of view here. And so are the Eastern Mystics. If you really want to know the universe open yourself up to actually feeling and experiencing it. Don't try to understand it through language and words. That's a misguided path.



Like I already said above. No word gives birth to an idea. But rather ideas give birth to words. If you believe that you have gotten a "new idea" from a preexisting "word", you are mistaken. What you have truly done is been sparked to have a new idea from the previous idea that was related to the word that had already been given birth from that previous idea.

Ideas exist before they are named. And words are nothing more than the names that we give to ideas.

So I'm in total disagreement with your whole view above.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that it doesn't fit my view of reality and if you can somehow make sense of a universe were words precede ideas then more power to you. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.


--



Well, now you're going back to classical thinking again and using macro classical objects as examples.

I am in total agreement that. Once we recognize an idea and label that idea, we use the labels to convey that same idea.

All trees are going to inspire the same ideas. All stars are going to inspire the same idea, etc. And the fact that our physical universe is dependable in this matter is due to the macro laws of classical physics.

But clearly the calculus ideas that Newton and Leibniz were far more abstract than trees and stars. So all ideas do not need to conform to physical objects. We can indeed 'make them up"



Well, if you do away with objects of pure imagination then you're going to have to say goodbye to about 99.9% of mathematics.

And once again, your demand that every definition must have a macro physical counterpart in order to be considered "sensible" is an appeal to classical thinking and using the macro physical universe as a standard by which to measure things.

Yet you claim that you are not attempting to reduce philosophy to this classical notion.

Let me ask you this:

How can you even speak about a concept of "belief" if you are going to demand that it is nonsensical to speak of imaginary things?

What can "belief" possibly be but a product of the imagination?

How are you going to define a word like "belief" if you don't allow objects of pure imagination?

How are you going to get started with Euclid's elements if you don't allow the abstract notions of dimensionless points, lines, and planes? How are you ever going to deal with pure abstract mathematics if you are not going to allow for objects of pure imagination?

Are you going to demand that we all use "Applied Mathematics" only. And let's not even think about what's going to happen when you run into irrational numbers, because there is no way that you are going to define them without using objects of pure imagination.

You use mathematical "unicorns" every day without even realizing it.

Science and mathematics would never get off the ground if we demand that everything must have a physical counterpart before it can be considered to be "sensible".

~~~~

So all I can say is that I'm way off in a different ball park from where you're at. I'm not even playing the same game.

I'm pretty sure that I do understand what you are dreaming of and hoping for. You are hoping to find something that you can put your finger on and say, "Ah! This is concrete! This is real! This is absolute! We can start here and never stray off into the la-la land abstraction ever again"

That's never gonna happen. Spinoza probably came as close as we'll ever get to that during the classical period.

There's no going back. Things are only becoming more abstract Michael, not more concrete. We're moving away from the classic era and those days are gone forever.

The only hope now is to embrace the abstraction and learn to deal with it.

Once you accept it, it's really not all that bad. In fact, it can be quite beautiful actually. All sorts of possibilities open up.

Right. Calculus just popped right into their heads without any necessary contingency upon the more simple maths that gave rise it, that it is comprised of?

No it is not. It is the basis for the idea of a papaya tree.

In fact, if it were the actual basis for the name "papaya tree" then there could be no other "papaya tree" in the whole universe unless it matched the tree in your yard in every last detail.

The name "papaya tree" is an abstraction of pure imagination.

So? Those are just ideas too.

Ideas that were labeled with arbitrary words and symbols. It was the ideas that gave rise to those words and symbols too, not the other way around.

Words and symbols are just symbolic of ideas. They aren't the ideas themselves. If they were then Newton and Leibniz would have had to have imagined using the same words and symbols to express their ideas, but clearly they didn't.

The proof is in the pudding and now the pudding's on the table.

Edited...

It is not even worth it.

words are just words... if someone decided a tree should have been called a cloud, and others accepted that, then rain would be coming from trees, and you would have a cloud growing in your front yard...when that comet slammed into jupiter, if someone else would have seen it first, it would not have been called shoemaker-levy, it could have been named pete, or bob... but our accepted definition is know known as shoemaker - levy...