In our language, words have definitions, and we know that definitions are truth-bearers because they are declarative.
And in our language, we can’t prove a definition of a word. That’s why we take the agreed-upon definition of a word as its true definition.
But in our language, there are many words that don’t have agreed-upon definitions; even experts themselves disagree on what their definitions should be. Alongside this, the general public also doesn’t agree on the definitions of those words. For example, words like intelligence, consciousness, justice, free will, etc.
So, the problem is: how can we know, among all those definitions of those words, which one is the true definition of those words without proving the definition? Or can we know which definition of those words is true? If we can’t know the definitions of those words, then how should we treat those words? Should we just abandon those words and treat them as meaningless symbols or sounds because we can’t know their true definitions? Or should we do something else?
There are two basic methods….one is Top<>Down - Nihilists love this one.
Then there is the Bottom<>UP method - realists prefer this.
Top<>Down BEGINS with an objective….a metaphysical objective, if they wish to escape or cope with the existent. A Platonic Ideal existing only in their heads.
The realist begins with the observable, the independently verifiable….the ACT, and then works his way towards the metaphysical.
So, he builds from ignorance towards increasing levels of gnosis…never attaining absolute certainty.
Consider the term ‘life’…..we need not know everything about life to begin with the observable….the experience of life, creating theories based on observation.
Similarly….we need not know everything about the Will…..nor its strength nor its freedom to experience it in ourselves and in others.
Then we can evaluate it….its strength, its beauty, its freedom. etc……
Every value-judgment being an estimation, relative to an objective.
Our objective should be truth….at any cost.
Our evaluations, estimations, approximations, must also begin with what is observable.
The concept of a “true definition” is mistaken from the jump. There are two things at play when a word is spoken: what the speaker means, and what the listener understands. Usually when two people are fluent in the same language, what the speaker means and what the listener understands are pretty close to equivalent. They’re close enough to the same that the listener will usually understand what was meant, typically.
If two people have different understandings of the same word, there’s not necessarily a clear cut right and wrong, instead it’s best to figure out by what criteria you’re judging the two meanings. Are you judging them by popular usage? Are you judging them by what the speaker meant, or by what we can ascertain the speaker probably meant? Different contexts of word usage give different answers to how we should judge.
Communication is social in nature. Understand and judge word usage from the social context in which it happens.
For example we take consciousness. Consciousness has many definitions. But I take one definition which is subjective feelings, experience, and awareness. The question is can I see someone is feeling, experience, and awareness? No, I can’t I can just see the effects of them but I can’t see them actually. It is entirely possible someone is doing the acting of consciousness without having consciousness.
Like this I can take free will, free will has many definitions but take one definition which is ability to do otherwise. Can I observe this? No, we can think theoretically that a person is taking another action in the past scenario but we can’t see this in real life. So, you can see for various abstract concepts which is definitions contested aren’t observable. That’s why your observation method doesn’t work for them.
For the definition I am taking only the person who has consciousness can know with certainty that he has consciousness. But still the question is, the definition I am having is the true definition or not.
This is a very good principle when two people are talking. But when it comes to academic or philosophical. It doesn’t seems that a communication problem is happening. It seems like a genuine disagreement is happening, for example different psychologist have different definitions of intelligence. The psychologist themselves disagree which one should be taken and they don’t take the definition the way you mentioned.
Also definitions are a declarative sentences and if you little bit knew logic. You will know all declarative sentences are propositions or statements which can be true or false. Because definitions are declarative means they are propositions means they are truth bearers. That’s why I don’t agree with the notion there is no right or wrong definition. There is just we don’t know how to get it.
You mean like the declaration that “this word means this”, yeah? No, words only mean something to somebody. That’s why we have different languages. There’s no deep truth to what words mean beyond how they’re intended and how they’re understood. If there were a deeper truth, there’d be a single correct language and all the other languages would be wrong. Is that your position? That there’s one single correct language in the universe?
