Definitions are human constructs thus open to one’s choices, arbitrary and unreal. They are not found in the real world but declared premises. And, one has every right to do that too.
But, the problem arises when one starts taking advantage of that liberty to fulfil his bias and start playing tricks through semantics. Then, the true purpose of defining the definitions is cheated and we are left with half truth and propaganda.
Unfortunately, this is a modus operandi of certain posters at ILP. They do nothing except this, or rather I should say that they are incapable of doing anything else except this. Perhaps, that is only definition of the philosophy they have in their narrow and twisted minds.
OF course, one has every right to stick to a certain ideology. There is nothing wrong in it. But, that does not mean that one should tweak and mispresent facts and language to suit one’s bias. That is the only difference between fanatics and intellectuals.
Coming to philosophical point, as i see it, there are two types of facts, positive and negative. Regarding any particular thing, there can be only one positive truth but many negative ones at the same time. And, a statement is not truly completed unless it mentions negative truths also besides positive one.
Let me explain.
We all know that the sun rises in the east. Now, let me tweak this statement to misrepresent things.
1- The sun rises only on the east.
2 - The sun does not rise in the west.
3 - West is just opposite to the east.
4 - The sun does not rise in the south or north.
5 - As the sun does not rise in the south and north either, which is the same as the case of the west, thus south and north are also as apposite to the east as the west is.
Means, south and north are also as “aeastic” as the west is. Now, one can argue on the basis of this reasoning that east is alone at one side while all other three directions are its opposite and on the other side.
But, we know that is not true. A trick of semantics is being played here to fool the people. The trick is that irrespective of the fact which direction you choose as a starting point, all three other sides can be presented as the opposite of the first one, though in reality, it is only one side is actually opposite.
West is the only true “aeastic” side but this fact is very shrewdly excluded here that both of south and north have nothing to do with this dispute between east and west.
Yes, one can misrepresent south and north either as “aeastic” or “awestic” just by changing the initial frame of reference.
Thus, if one wants to represent the complete and actual truth, he must say that the sun rises in the east but sets only in the west, neither in south or north. That would clear the complete picture about the interrelations of all four sides.
One more issue of neutrality is pertinent here.
The thing to understand here is there cannot be anything true neutral ever between two oopposites, which are east and west here In this case.
The supporters of the east can claim that it is neutral or default position while west is an artificial or enforced one. But, supporters of the west can also claim the same. And, neither claim supersedes the other one. Both have the same weight. It is only south and north which are closer to be truly neutral or different both of two other sides.
All this explanation can be translated into theism, atheism and agnosticm.
With love,
Sanjay