Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: June 14th, 2021, 11:50 am
Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
Conflict - In a philosophical debate, there is no such thing as a conflict. Only contradiction or dissonance.
Confirmation - Frequently used to mean verification or being "consistent with", and misused to mean affirmation. (Saying "yes" is an affirmation.)
Normative - It's better to use "prescriptive", as a distinction from "descriptive".
Burden of proof - An excessive way of saying "onus".
Reason - Unless used to mean the cognitive faculty of reason, it's just an ambiguous term which is variously used to signify either "justification" or "telos" (Aristotle's fourth category). Its most blatant misuse is to signify etiology (cause for an effect).
Absolute - Not sure about why this is a useful term. When Hegel speaks of the "absolute", he could have just said "unconditional" to avoid ambiguity.
Singular, singularity - Effectively it just refers to continuity. Many people are confused about the idea of monism; when Spinoza says that two things are the same substance, he means that they are continuous.
Similarity - In philosophy, it's essentially just a matter of continuity.
Disprove - Ambiguous term which can mean anything from "exclude" to "contradict" or "falsify".
Debunk - A term of rather random etymology which can be ambiguous, meaning either "falsify" or "exclude".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
Tell that to Michael Servetus whom after having been invited to dine with John Calvin for a "debate" was imprisoned and executed.Fja1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2021, 11:52 am When being introduced to philosophical ideas, a young individual is often overwhelmed by the amount of terms he encounters. Mastering these is a necessity to access a philosophical thesis, but many terms which are used ambiguously or lazily do not aid his comprehension. After a concise list of my own, you may contribute to this thread with terms which you find unnecessary, ambiguous or obsolete.
Conflict - In a philosophical debate, there is no such thing as a conflict. Only contradiction or dissonance.
It means neither. It's more like taken for granted, endemic assumptions, or unknown knownsConfirmation - Frequently used to mean verification or being "consistent with", and misused to mean affirmation. (Saying "yes" is an affirmation.)
Normative - It's better to use "prescriptive", as a distinction from "descriptive".
Depends of contextBurden of proof - An excessive way of saying "onus".
No. Aristotle's 4th cause is "purpose" or literally "end".Reason - Unless used to mean the cognitive faculty of reason, it's just an ambiguous term which is variously used to signify either "justification" or "telos" (Aristotle's fourth category).
Two things. Hegel was writing in German, and at the best of times he was still a bit of an old obscurantist windbag.Its most blatant misuse is to signify etiology (cause for an effect).
Absolute - Not sure about why this is a useful term. When Hegel speaks of the "absolute", he could have just said "unconditional" to avoid ambiguity.
It's much stronger than contradict and exclude. Contradict is what you do on the first step to disproving something. Disproving is more final and complete. Falsify has gained more kudos with Karl Popper; his falsification theory offers a way of thinking which examines so show that a proposition has more validity if it would be possible to disprove it. This gives great strength to inductive statements and leave many propostiions that are not falsifiable in the dark.Singular, singularity - Effectively it just refers to continuity. Many people are confused about the idea of monism; when Spinoza says that two things are the same substance, he means that they are continuous.
Similarity - In philosophy, it's essentially just a matter of continuity.
Disprove - Ambiguous term which can mean anything from "exclude" to "contradict" or "falsify".
Actually the etymology is crystal clear, first written by William Woodward (1874-1950), in his best-seller "Bunk" recalling the ineffective waffle of teh Congressman of Buncombe County N Carolina c.1820Debunk - A term of rather random etymology which can be ambiguous, meaning either "falsify" or "exclude".
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
[Sorry for the screwed-up italicising. ]
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: June 14th, 2021, 11:50 am
Re: Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
Well said.
Or onus probandi...Burden of proof - An excessive way of saying "onus".
Exactly. I think Artistotle calls it telos, hence, teleology. When saying, for instance "the reason why I'm reading is so that I can pass the exam", reason is end-oriented, isn't it? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using this sort of latinicism; I'm just deferring from using it in a philosophical argument where it can be ambiguous or redundant.No. Aristotle's 4th cause is "purpose" on literally "end".Reason - Unless used to mean the cognitive faculty of reason, it's just an ambiguous term which is variously used to signify either "justification" or "telos" (Aristotle's fourth category).
Hence, there's even "exclude", which is unambiguous, and frequently used in forensics and empirical science.It's much stronger than contradict and exclude. Contradict is what you do on the first step to disproving something. Disproving is more final and complete. Falsify has gained more kudos with Karl Popper; his falsification theory offers a way of thinking which examines so show that a proposition has more validity if it would be possible to disprove it. This gives great strength to inductive statements and leave many propostiions that are not falsifiable in the dark.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
If a word can have more than one meaning, and the meaning is not obvious from the context, I think it helps to at least be aware of that fact when using the word.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Philosphical terms you should seek to avoid
That's close to what I was thinking before I read your post. When used correctly, that is, when it blends contextually to create meaning, why should it be excluded. There may be rules of use which are often infringed but not avoidance. Even four-letter words not permitted in these monastic discussion forums have a function in correctly describing the merit of some posts.Steve3007 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2021, 11:26 am I don't think we necessarily ought to avoid any particular terms, so long as we try to be clear what we mean by them if there is a significant possibility of doubt. "Proof" is a good example. It can mean demonstrating something to be true by definition such that to doubt it would be self-contradictory (as in mathematical proofs), or it can mean to present evidence to test an empirical proposition (as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"). It's one example of a word that is often used by speakers who don't seem to know, and sometimes don't really seem to care, which sense they're using it in.
If a word can have more than one meaning, and the meaning is not obvious from the context, I think it helps to at least be aware of that fact when using the word.
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
2023/2024 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