We need a philosophers dictionary

I’ve noticed that most dictionaries themselves are totally incoherent on many aspects of definitions, and I can intuitively reconstruct and re-create the perfect form of any definition, if the word in question or meaning was well constructed.

It pisses me off too because when I make an exacting definition, some degree-tard over on wikitionary re-writes or eliminates my changes.

I think we need to do this! Because I think a philosophers dictionary would make other peoples lie-speak much more difficult, because a lie is a distorted truth

Therefore, because the lie exists, we can deduce what shape it really is.

Whether it is valid, Invalid, or totally incoherent

The fact is we don’t need “experts” to define stuff for us, we are intelligent enough to extract and give precise meaning to definitions.

Words are the simplest of all to define because they are based on the world itself, and anyone can look at the world and analyze it what the word means, represents, etc.

The Stanford Enclyclopedia and the Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy are online. I find the former more reliable than the latter. And there are others.

Or, you could always ask Imp. He’s practically a walking encyclopedia himself, and among the most reliable sources that I know.

When it comes to dictionaries I don’t authorities because of my special ability to de-jargon words and meanings. Thought is controlled by the meanings and definitions of words and phrases…

Consider “freedom” and “capitalism” near religions unto themselves in todays world, yet they are nebulously manipulated to mean absolutely nothing and the popular conceptions of them are full of holes to the nth degree.

I think a mutually worked on wikitionary that we can all add/edit to would be good, no one organization can do it all and when something is the product of too many minds you lose focus and cohesion, but when there is mutual support (i.e. trust, agreement) there won’t be the stupid politics you get in those hard assed barbaric academic settings.

Language should be designed to communicate clearly and to everyone, and reserve the ‘compressed’ and technical forms for those who enjoy it.

“What one finds in a dictionary are not the ‘meanings of words’ but more words. Indeed, that is the first rule of dictionary-making: Every word must have an entry, and every entry will consist of other words. When the entry word is unfamiliar, the other words should be more familiar.”

“A dictionary is not a suitable place to look if your puzzlement about a word is a philosophical puzzlement, a puzzlement about the particular way in which some individual philosopher is using that word in a piece of reasoning which you are concerned to evaluate. If the term in question is a familiar one, being used in some limited, novel, or unfamiliar way in service of specific dialectical ends, then the dictionary’s reconstruction of the usual and customary job done by that term in speech and writing is not likely to prove particularly helpful to you.”

~Jay F. Rosenberg, The Practice of Philosophy

I have the oxford philosophy dictionary in my bathroom.

I’ve read that from A to Z… an excellent read :wink: