Debate without demarcating concepts?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » Debate without demarcating concepts? » Debate without demarcating concepts?

Page: 1 2

Debate without demarcating concepts?

Mnev

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 19

Posted 09/22/09 - 08:19 AM: Subject: Debate without demarcating concepts?	#1
It might as well just be me, but for the short time that I've been around on this forum now, I've noticed that a lot of discussions here comprise of people's opinions on various concepts of words in the same topic. A lot of people use concepts and words interchangeably, often leading to confusing discussions. The connection between both is not always as clear as it seems. Different words for example, can be used for the same concept, whereas on the other hand, different concepts can be implied by the same word. Wouldn't it be an idea if it were a requisite to clearly define the concepts meant by the substantially disputed words one uses. To my view, this could significantly improve the quality of some discussions.

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 843

Posted 09/22/09 - 08:49 AM:	#2
From the Analyects of Confuscious, Book 8, Chapter 3: (Although the cite seems to be flawed) Tzu-lu said, "The prince of Wei has been waiting for you, in order that you administer (cheng) the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?" The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify (cheng) names." "So, indeed!" said Tzu-lu. "You are wide of the mark. Why must their be such rectification?" The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect." You may find, however, that when people get to defining terms, they never start talking about the things that are important.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/22/09 - 09:03 AM:	#3
Analyzing concepts is already an important part of philosophy. But before we make it a prerequisite to posting, I'd consider two things. First, everyday understandings of some disputed concepts, such as "cause" and "justice," may be good enough for many purposes. Second, analyzing concepts is hard to do: half the debate over free will is explaining just what it's supposed to be. If we had to define it before we discussed it, we'd certainly shift topics, but wouldn't necessarily make progress.

Mnev

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 19

Posted 09/22/09 - 10:28 AM:	#4
Surely, you have a point when referring to topics in which concepts like free will itself is to be philosophized about. As I said, I was only giving my opinion, and you are probably right that such a prerequisite does not necessarily bring progress to philosophy, however, I specifically meant situations in which people unsuccessfully try to make their point, just because they fail to include a clear definition of the concepts they're using. Perhaps it's just part of philosophy, but I just thought I might mention it

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:31 PM:	#5
Dependant on which form you are looking for, an actual change in definition to some ideals like noumena must occur. Otherwise -it's just nonsense. What's the point in claiming everything is red if you cannot successfully argue an alternative functional form?
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:32 PM:	#6
Oh, and all discussions that differ from the 'given accepted meaning' tends to land in a fallacy.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:54 PM:	#7
What are concepts?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 843

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:54 PM:	#8
In case my post was too oblique - I was making the point that for at least 2500 years, people have been complaining about language and the inability to be clearly understood. Often times, people want to define terms preliminarily for the sake of argument, but since most people agree about what logic applies once the terms are defined, an argument is won or lost at the definitional stage. People are, therefore, hesitant to concede a definition for fear it may come back to bite them later. Consequently, the definitional approach is generally a diversion from actually discussing the substance of the point being made. Better to be imprecise and at least possibly convey your point than to try to be precise and never get to say what you wanted to say. I think this is why you’ll find quite a few threads talking about language games and the way in which language fails when you start demanding too much precision from it.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/22/09 - 02:31 PM:	#9
Mnev wrote: Wouldn't it be an idea if it were a requisite to clearly define the concepts meant by the substantially disputed words one uses. To my view, this could significantly improve the quality of some discussions. It would be an excellent idea if there were some way of defining words or concepts without using other words or concepts. As it is, all that happens is that the argument is shifted from the words in the propositions to the words in the definitions. But hang on, you haven't defined 'idea', 'requisite', 'disputed'... perhaps I do agree after all.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Mnev

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 19

Posted 09/22/09 - 02:59 PM:	#10
Cadrache wrote: Dependant on which form you are looking for, an actual change in definition to some ideals like noumena must occur. Otherwise -it's just nonsense. What's the point in claiming everything is red if you cannot successfully argue an alternative functional form? Either you're giving a bad example, or you did not fully understand me. Defining what concept one is meaning with the use of a specific word is definitely not the same as claiming that a specific word undoubtedly refers to a certain concept. Banno wrote: What are concepts? I get your point, I'm not trying to head that way. My answer: a concept, in a nutshell, is what one refers to by using specific words. In other words: what one is trying to bring up by using a certain word. Now of course this is MY definition of the term 'concept' which exactly boils down to my point. I'm not trying to bind concepts to words, I'm merely suggesting that it could be useful if one clarifies what concept one is meaning when using a (set of) word(s). So again, this topic was far from an attempt to permanently bind certain concepts to certain words. Edited by Mnev on 09/22/09 - 03:11 PM

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.