People are always argueing something, such that it seems that often the real problem is ultimately a difference in definitions.
But isn’t any dictionary full of words that use the same words in that dictionary to define the various definitions. In otherwords it seems to me that a dictionary is ultimately a giant circumlocution so complex that it is hard for one to recognize its circular pattern?
Yeah, but you know. You can leap right in. You know what leap means.
Well it seems you can only make sense of our language if you have some pre-existing connection to it, I doubt an alien could just look at our dictionary and actually make any sense of it and it alone.
Yes, that’s true.
True on general principle - language is largely self-referent and people get lost in it and call it philosophy.
Untrue in the primordial, caveman sense: when there were just those first handful of words replacing slightly less complex grunts, one could only explain them by pointing out the thing they referred to in the real world. For example, if you have only “fire” “danger” “rain” “me” “you” and “that” - you cant make a dictionary, these things dont explain each other.
good point though, in general -
many if not most arguments would be reduced to the agreement that x=x, if the debaters understood the terms of the ideas they were defending, and if they were willing to trade passion for reason.
“Body language” to point is merly another form of language, how could one being learn to converse with another if one was unaware of what was meant by pointing in the first place?
It all begins by naming the obvious things with which people can relate. The details gradually get worked in.
But also realize the difference in a sentence of explanation (every good definition) and merely a substitute word (a very poor effort at defining, yet common).
A sentence communicates a detailed concept such as to limit with more precision the usage of a simple word. A good definition will not only relay what the word means, but inherently relay what the word does not mean as well. But it is hard to find good definitions.
Existence == a realm of affect; having affect; causing effect
Non-existence == a realm of no affect; having no affect; causing no effect.
If the words “affect” and “effect” are not known, their definitions would also have to be looked up;
Affect == altering; changing; causing change; altering a state.
Inherently then;
Non-affect == not altering; not changing; not causing any change; not altering any state.
Then something more general can be defined;
Affectance == general field of affect; flow of affecters; or potential to affect.
Yes, they often are and it often drives me batty–but, using synonyms might be worse, since a synonym slightly alters the original word’s meaning. The better dictionaries will use the word being defined in sentences and give a list of synonyms–so if your looking for a particular meaning and don’t find it defined exactly the way you want to use it, you can start looking up the definitions of the synonyms.
If you really want to get involved with actually reading a dictionary, try the Oxford English (OED). I can get absorbed in that for long periods of time.
Lol, I think it is fun to just flip to random pages and see what the first word you see is…
That’s true.
Unless they’re those crazy MIB aliens who speaky engrish.
When the eye turns and focuses on a certain pattern of light stimulating the retina, all the words (the knowledge) contained in memory are activated allowing you to experience an object. So through this process of using words to experience the same things over and over again seems like a vicious cycle that is wearing you out.
I would say that in a sense we “experience the same things over and over again” but obviously it would seem that we are experiencing these same things in a different way, that difference may very well be due to our perception, regardless if you can say that, you can also say that things are constantly changeing, that they are at least different in that they seem different, and isn’t any difference better than eternal non-difference, as that would get boring, very quickly. unless you might propose complete “emptyness” in the sense of achieveing a state of effectively non-perception, in which case you wouldn’t actually experience that existence at all. In fact you might think that even if an infinite amount of time was spent being empty, it would be possible to wake up after that infinite amount of time and it would have seemed to never have passed. In fact you could argue regardless of any complete state of being “empty” or not coming into existence, it is possible that such “emptyness” occurs constantly or even at random times in our lives, we just don’t remember them occuring.
You don’t need aliens. Take a Finnish dictionary and try working out how to express happiness in Finnish (assuming you don’t speak the language already). And that’s making it easy by giving you an alphabet you know to work with.
Of course dictionary references are circular. Language doesn’t come from dictionaries. Language comes from ways of life, from social conventions, from shared experiences. Dictionaries only express things in alternative ways, with the aim that if you don’t understand one word you can weave an understanding from your experience of other words.
Seriously, spend some time with small kids. Watch them try to make sense of the world and (mis)use language to express it. I think most philosophers could learn a lot from under-5s.