Dictionaries and Word Definitions
- Vanvulcj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: February 25th, 2017, 8:22 am
Dictionaries and Word Definitions
I have a lot more to say on this but for now I'll just toss this question out there. Looking forward to your two cents.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
A philosophical debate shouldn't be centered around the definition of the word (that's linguistics, not philosophy), so you shouldn't need to decide whether a source is legitimate for its definition of a word.
If you are debating with someone over what a word actually means, given that you both have alternating definitions, you are both fools for debating the matter. There is no "right" definition of a word; language is a changing thing and it changes throughout time and space. Words' definitions are fluid, so "nerd" may mean one thing to me, and another thing to you. It's like arguing about The Dress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress), and spitting in each other's faces over which color it is. It's foolish, because it should be obvious that your disagreement arises simply out of an initial difference in perception. Neither of you is wrong (unless you really just don't know the word's definition at all), the word just appears to you according to your worldview, and you will never understand its meaning quite like someone else does.
I hope I answered your question (I have a knack for misunderstanding people's questions )
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
There is a difference between general dictionaries and special, science-specific dictionaries, the latter of which may be regarded as more authoritative than the former with regard to technical terms. The factually dominant usage of a term or concept is relevant to a genuinely philosophical conceptual analysis, but the latter isn't exhausted by a mere appeal to dictionary definitions, because philosophical reflection consists in more than linguistic description.Vanvulcj wrote:Is a dictionary definition a legitimate tool in a philosophical debate? I've seen some claim it represents a logical fallacy (appeal to authority, appeal to popularity). I have a lot more to say on this but for now I'll just toss this question out there. Looking forward to your two cents.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
In legal documents and in statues drawn up by elected representative, there is often a section in which rigorous definitions identify the meaning of some words, that have meanings in the document that are not EXACTLY as they are accepted by common consensus.
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: May 9th, 2013, 10:03 am
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
No. You have the definitive answer; debate/dialog needs to define the terms used. The main tool of sophistry is a gradual change in the meaning of terms used. The obvious example I think of is Hannah Arendt's absconding away with the words labor, work and action and assigning them her own specific meanings which she clearly explains.Ozymandias wrote:Consul made that apt point both eloquently and succinctly- thumbs up
When I look at the dictionary definitions I almost always go exclusively to the etymon which gives the general essence of a word regardless of the specific uses as Consul highlighted. If words share roots they also share meaning. Understanding this gives a more panoramic understanding of the sometimes vast ideas conjured up by a single word. Arendt often refers to etymons to enhance understanding and also to clear-up differences due to different languages. The etymon of "etymon" means "true meaning." LOL
.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."Zerubbabel wrote:When I look at the dictionary definitions I almost always go exclusively to the etymon which gives the general essence of a word regardless of the specific uses as Consul highlighted. If words share roots they also share meaning. Understanding this gives a more panoramic understanding of the sometimes vast ideas conjured up by a single word. Arendt often refers to etymons to enhance understanding and also to clear-up differences due to different languages. The etymon of "etymon" means "true meaning."
(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: May 9th, 2013, 10:03 am
Re: Dictionaries and Word Definitions
I think that the fear of being accused of etymological fallacy drives people from the wonderfulness of etymology in facilitating "a more panoramic understanding of the sometimes vast ideas conjured up by a single word." People tend to avoid the etymology altogether because of it. The ubiquitous anti-etymological meme does a disservice to dialog.Consul wrote: "What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."
(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)
Just to be clear, I am not an advocate of the etymological fallacy. I repeat: "You (Ozymandias) have the definitive answer; debate/dialog needs to define the terms used."
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023