Tweaking the Definitions

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

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

2

Everyone’s arguments are respective to their positions, the more extreme that is the more different their take on things. When worldviews are far apart it will seem like one isn’t listening to the other, but that’s not the same as bending things to fit ones perspective [belief] as you say.

Philosophy should be about making arguments for and against a position, and not forcing it on others or ignoring valid arguments against it.

Though it generally just destroys everyone’s positions lol.

Does philosophy in fact deny truth? You cant say anything e.g. About spirituality, because philosophy has words which don’t mean that, but are the only viable [physical] alternative. Or philosophy says’ a thing without description isnt real, a thing with only partial description also isnt real, only full descriptions are real and there are no full descriptions.

_

3

Obviously this entire thing is false.
The sun does not rise or fall.

Isn’t it just like a Theist to try to make an argument against Theism through the use of a falsehood.

4

… and isn’t it just like an Atheist to be blind to the blatantly obvious.

5

=>#

6

Amorphos,

I am neither asking nor expecting anyone not to plead for their positions. The only thing I am expecting is to bit more honest with themselves and others, at least In the name of philosophy. Argue your case as hard as you can but on logic not childish tricks.

Or, am I expecting a little much?

With love,
Sanjay

7

Obviously, I was talking precisely about these kind of posts.

With love,
Sanjay

8

Arminus,

You are not far from the truth but you have to keep in the mind that ILP or Internet philosophy cannot meet the standards of academic philosophy either. These forums are meant to common people (including myself), not scholars. Thus, one should expect bit more naivety here. That is acceptable but there should be some limit to naivety too.

With love,
Sanjay

9

Sanjay,

Great post! I think there’s a lot here to chew. Let me start with this:

I agree, but I think we have to make a distinction between those who deliberately cheat in the philosophical game (we call these people sophists), and those who genuinely understand some term or some definition to be different from what most others take it to be.

When you say that the definition of words are arbitrary and up to us to decide upon, you are right, but one can still make the distinction between making up one’s own customized definition because of an honest change of understanding or a new understanding, and making up one’s own customized definition because of some ulterior motive–that is, a desire to manipulate or deceive for some hidden purpose. Furthermore, one is not always conscious of one’s own motive, and one can be motivated by the latter impulse as much as one can be motivated by the former, and in either case, still believe that one is just being honest and speaking from the heart.

I think honesty in one’s motives is what’s at the heart of this, which is often easier said than done.

But how is one to know what the negative truths requiring mention are? I mean, one could argue that there are an infinite number of negative truths to every positive truth. So the sun rises in the East, sets in the West, and not in the North or South. You forgot to mention North East, and South West. You forgot North West, and South East. You forgot underground–the Sun doesn’t set by digging a hole in the Earth every night–and you forgot shooting off into space a million light years away–the Sun certainly doesn’t do that. The Sun doesn’t melt into a plasma and cover the sky either, and it doesn’t turn into a dancing hula girl at high noon just to dance its way into a secret door behind which is disappears from the universe just to return again in the East the next morning. ← You get my point of course.

I think there can be some warrant for mentioning what negative facts are the case, but I think that requires knowing how most people are apt to misunderstand your statement. It’s like the disclaimer “Now, I don’t meant to offend, but…” ← We say this because we know that while we say what we want to say, what we say is very likely to be misinterpreted in a negative way. So we not only speak the truth as we see it, but we speak certain negative truths just to make ourselves extra clear and dispel any potential misinterpretation, negative truths like “I don’t mean this as an insult…”. But this only happens when one suspects a certain misinterpretation, and a very particular misinterpretation. But not all misinterpretations can be predicted–in fact, there can be an infinitude of ways our words cab be misinterpreted–and there are bound to be cases when our words are misinterpreted in ways that we could never have predicted, and in those cases, I don’t think it’s fair to say that we have misrepresented the truth.

10

Exactly what I was going to say.

As long as one admits that he is declaring a personal definition when he uses it, there should be no harm. If most of the populous wants to use that definition, eventually it will become the norm and no long need declaration.

But normal societies are entirely dependent upon deception. Thus demanding honesty is a bit pointless.

11

Philosophy cannot be misused because it cannot be properly used in the first place. There is no ‘proper’ use for a language game.

Scholarly and academic philosophy is different from ours only by being a higher caliber of confusion.

At your age, Sanjay, you should be more interested in the problems of philosophy than philosophy itself.

It was not for nothing that Wittgenstein threatened Popper with a fire poker, you know.

“There are no genuine philosophical problems, Sanjay, only linguistic problems.”

12

“All salesmen are liars”?
Presumptuous.
Erroneous.

13

Add to this that he honestly believes his definition to be justified. All else is mere sophistry.

Honesty with one’s self is what matters.

14

Okay, Zinnat (Sanjay). But if this process of “naivete”, how you call it, continues and produces more and more “naivete”, then it is not even possible anymore to talk about themes like “tweaking the definitions”.

15

Gib - I agree, but I think we have to make a distinction between those who deliberately cheat in the philosophical game (we call these people sophists), and those who genuinely understand some term or some definition to be different from what most others take it to be.

When you say that the definition of words are arbitrary and up to us to decide upon, you are right, but one can still make the distinction between making up one’s own customized definition because of an honest change of understanding or a new understanding, and making up one’s own customized definition because of some ulterior motive–that is, a desire to manipulate or deceive for some hidden purpose. Furthermore, one is not always conscious of one’s own motive, and one can be motivated by the latter impulse as much as one can be motivated by the former, and in either case, still believe that one is just being honest and speaking from the heart.

I think honesty in one’s motives is what’s at the heart of this, which is often easier said than done.

Sanjay - Actually, this line of thinking did not spring to my mind from replying Mucter. I realized this concept of positive and negative truth long ago when I was discussing about AI with someone. Machines have the same problem as they are aware of the positive facts only. That is why they have only some partial information about anything, not complete understanding.

Secondly, it is not that difficult to realize the actual intention behind the argument. Like, I do not have any issue with you calling infants as atheist’s, because I know that you did not have any hidden agenda and arguing just for philosophical sake, and would also agree to anything rational.

But, ,Mucter would never do that. When I showed him that going by his style of reasoning, I can successfully club agnostics with theists, he started avoiding to address that particular argument and sidestepped. That is what I call intellectual dishonesty.

That happens many times in discussions. People realize their defeat but still try to cover themselves anyhow, either because of ego or political agendas. And, as the result, stoot themselves I’m the feet without realizing as all this curbs their own intellectual growth, not anyone else’s.

And, it is not such a difficult thing to notice. Take any long thread and start reading it carefully from the beginning. And, you will automatically realize who is philosophically honest and who is playing tricks or unable to accept logical arguments just because of ego. No rocket science is required

Gib - You get my point of course.

Sanjay - Yes, I understand what you are saying. It is true that there can be many negative truths behind one positive one and sometimes also impossible to mention all.

But, there are indirect ways to express all negative facts as whole. Like, one can say that the sun rises in the east but sets in the west only. Here, “only” clearly negates all other possibilities except west.

Secondly, if you ever go through legal or constitutional documents, you will find negative truths mentioned there along with positive ones. The drafters of such documents visualize possible negative truths and try to address those as much as possible to avoid any later confusion or misinterpretation by any concerning party.

With love,
Sanjay

16

So, god and theism = bad, irrational, etc.
materialism and science = good, smart, rational.

Right?

17

Zoot - Scholarly and academic philosophy is different from ours only by being a higher caliber of confusion.

Sanjay - That is true to some extent but not completely.

Zoot - At your age, Sanjay, you should be more interested in the problems of philosophy than philosophy itself.

Sanjay - I am interested on both. The problems of philosophy are included in the philosophy.

Here are my ideas about the problems of philosophy —

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=180210

Perhaps, you may find some worth in that.

Zoot - "There are no genuine philosophical problems, Sanjay, only linguistic problems.

Sanjay - Again, it does not seem to me entirely true. There are both types of problems.

With love,
Sanjay

18

Yes, that is certainly an issue.

Having said that, that is precisely where the mods have to step in and correct the course. And, they do that too, more and less.

Actually, it is long process and will take time. The actual solution to this problem is not leaving it but fighting it while remaining in the system.

Secondly, if the students of any class, school or area are somewhat lagging in the studies in general, does that mean that they should never improve and remain at the same level?

With love,
Sanjay

19

Yes, that is precisely what he meant. Mucter also has something similar in his mind.

With love,
Sanjay

20

Philosophy can be misused, and unfotuntaely I have to add: in this times of misusing everything can be misused.

Feel free to feel like being misused. :wink:

Okay, dear Wittgensteinian, but philosophy and linguistics are nonetheless not the same. Logic and mathematics are also not the same.

I like your focus on language. However, a little bit differentiation is okay, isn’t it?