Philosophy Now Forum

Hi,
Psy: A dictionary can never make for an ending point to a discussion, not a constructive one anyway.

NS: This is a statement making a pretense at being universal, "never," and then admitting to the broad area of exception, "non-constructive."

So, I will take the above to mean that, 'yes, many discussions can be quickly resolved by the simple expediant of consulting a dictionary.'

Psy: I told you precisely how it can be done earlier. Perhaps you weren't listening?

NS: I must have had my nonsense filter turned on full.

Your 'cheesy' example tends to make my case for me. Rather than using a standardized dictionary, the participants simply decided to publicly pronounce their own definitions, rather than keeping them private. IOW, they created a limited, and momentary, dictionary.

Let's say in our discussion that you define an 'abortion' as the ending of a zygote's life, and ALA defines it as ending a fetus's, while I define it as ending an embro's. If none of us bothers to share these private definitions, how do you suppose this discussion (i.e. 'does a morning after pill constitute and abortion') would prosper? If we borrow from your cheese example, we could agree to accept each's personal definition, but that would mean there would be no resolution = end of discussion. OR, we could resort to using an authoritative, and neutral, source, e.g. a dictionary. Heck, why not sign on to using the same definitions as the rest of the English speaking world, or is that just too confining?

Psy: Your analogy to chess, is flimsy, at best.

NS: The idea that language is a game, requiring public, agreed upon rules, much like any other game such as chess, is not philosophically flimsy. I wish it were of my own origination, but alas I borrowed it from that flimsest of all philosophers, L. Wittgenstein. This is not say that he has decreed what language is, and that we all must bow to it. But, if you find it faulty, as with any reasonable position, you must counter it with a well reasoned argument of your own; never just dismiss it in some god-like manner. That sort of conduct is unworthy of you, of all people.

Psy: A signpost pointing east does not point to the same place as another signpost that points east, if it is 20 miles north.

NS: What concern have I where others' define the compass locations? I make up my own private directions, and thus have redefined North America as South America, and visa versa. I'm thinking of making Britain a continent, and Asia a small island; screw "authoritative charlatans".

If by resolved you mean that a pompous ass can walk away feeling that the matter has been resolved, then yes, for sure.

'Resolved' though, is a term that I generally take to mean that the matter has been properly put to rest.

Ofcourse, if the discussion is 'what is the dictionary definition of x?', then a constructive resolution can be made by reference to a dictionary. That is all.



If you want to define public pronouncing one's personal understanding of a term as 'a dictionary' then fine, there are circumstances in which consulting 'a dictionary' can assist in a discussion, though again, not to end the discussion.

The two types of 'dictionary' should also not be conflated. If by 'private definitions' you mean a personal understanding that is never shared, then for sure, private definitions are inhibitors to conversation. This is of little consequence, though, as people rarely have such 'private definitions' that they gleefully refuse to share with anyone.

In the cheese discussion the issue at hand is not 'what is the definition of cheese?', the issue at hand is 'does a recipe using feta qualify as 'Mr.Pilkington's Cheese Based Savoury Snack Foods'?'

Resorting to a dictionary does not resolve this issue.



Ok, now I am beginning to suspect that you are not the genuine Non Sum, because it is only grudgingly that I could believe him to be so stupid.
Do you seriously contend that there is a universal understanding of the definitions of words within the English speaking world? Any semblance of universality in definitions has only arisen in recent years, and that is still very much a semblance.

English has no central authoritative dispassionate definitions for word usage, the dictionary is not intended to be this. The dictionary is a documentation of the way that the english language is most commonly used, and is not intended to be exhaustive or authoritative.

Prescription vs. Description in dictionaries

Assumedly you are a prescriptivist? Another word for this is babbling retard.



And I'm sure Wittgenstein never said anything stupid in his life. Give me a break, you are really citing an authority?

Get out.




Apparently you are blind. I responded "A signpost pointing east does not point to the same place as another signpost that points east, if it is 20 miles north."

That is to say, a word used by two different people makes two distinct references because of where it originates.

Language may be comparable to a game, but it is distinctly more complex than chess, and the fact that something does not work in chess does not imply that it will not work in language. Such reductionist analogising is, frankly, pathetic.



It doesn't matter whether you call it North or South, there is no reason why one should be considered up and the other should be considered down, just so long as when you are talking to people you inform them what you mean by each term.

When one, or the other, debater has exhaused his ability to counter intelligently they either resign gracefully, or resign in some less than gracious manner. A prime example of the latter is resorting to an ad hominem (personal) attack. The point being, it is much easier to attack the person than their position.

One can easily recognize such an admission of failure by the choice, and quantity, of school-yard terms the defeated individual employs. This is well exemplified by the above post's use of the terms: "pompous ass, stupid, babbling retard, you are blind, [and] pathetic."

Fortunately (for me), the veracity of these descriptions is not the topic at hand. There is never any need to respond directly, or in kind, to comments such as these. One simply feels sympathy for the apparent insecurity, and accepts the graceless admission of defeat for 'the best the other can do'. That's all that we can ever expect from others, or from ourselves.

Go in peace, all ye frustrated, foiled, and fouled.

Take a look at one of the threads on argumentum ad hominem's.

The argumentum ad hominem is where I posit that your conclusion is wrong on the basis of some feature of the person espousing it (you).

I have made no such argument.

Further, had I made such a fallacious argument then it would not constitute a concession of the overall debate; to assert such is the 'fallacy fallacy'. The fact that a fallacious argument is brought to bear to support a notion does not mean that the conclusion is fallacious, as there may be other non-fallacious arguments brought to bear in supporting the notion.

Most of the examples you quote were not even comments directed towards you, and the comment on blindness was due to you saying you had not seen something that was plainly there. However, had they been directed at you with such an intent to insult it would in no way indicate frustration. I can quite calmly evaluate an argument to be breath-takingly stupid and then quite calmly evaluate the person espousing to be likewise stupid. However, let us suppose for a moment that I was frustrated, would this constitute a concession of a philosophical argument? I did not realise that the purpose of such an argument was to frustrate your opponent; I believe that it was to make sound and coherent arguments demonstrating one position to be correct as opposed to other positions. One easy way to frustrate another person when they are earnestly attempting to discuss something with you is to resort to absolute nonsense.

You lack a grasp of the nature of the argumentum ad hominem that is comparable to mick.

Like him you have thrown the toys out of the cradle just because your poverty of argument causes someone to think ill of you.

Get over it, people will often think you to be stupid, to assert that they could not possibly be right is simply gross arrogance.

Try proving me wrong by actually backing up your arguments with something other than arguments from authority and grandiose posturing.

Here are some ideas:
-about 50% of all conceptions spontaneously abort - if we are to take the anti-abortion movement's claims at face value, this means we have an ongoing epidemic worse than the Black Death. But since they are in fact not really concerned about this, they are clearly arguing in bad faith.

-the destruction of a single sperm or a single egg cell is not murder. What changes when the two merge? The new cell has no nervous system, no brain, nothing - it is just a cell - why is killing it at that stage any more wrong than killing a skin cell?

-in cases where a pregnant woman will receive no support from her family or community, it is plain unreasonable to demand that she has the child anyway

-even if abortion is wrong, banning it is not the best way to reduce number of abortions. Rather, we should work towards creating social conditions that reduces the need for abortion

But if you can give us some reasons why you think abortion is wrong, we can explain to you why those reasons are wrong.

It sounds like you have a very good teacher. One of the best way to gain better understanding of your own views is to get better understanding of the opposing views. Not everyone gets that.

The Catholic church would say: because the embryo has a soul and is therefore a human being.

This claim requires a great deal of clarification and support before it can be much of an answer.

What is a "soul"? What is the evidence for its existence? In what way is a human being harmed by being killed at the one-cell stage?

100% of humans die. Should we be concerned and should it affect our view of the living?

Would you kill a 3 year old child ?
Probably not.
Then ask the same question: would you kill a 2 year old, 1 year old, one month old, one second old, two days before being born, a month before being born, ....
You can make the steps of one minute only.
There is no other possibility than to make a starting point at the point of conception.

Gustaf

Before arguing that abortion is necessary you should first argue why killing people is necessary.
Some people worry about a pensions crisis. Why not make a plan for those who should go earlier in order to stabilize the pensions system ?

Why do you wish to hit the weakest and the most innocent first ?
How about hitting those who are a nuisance to society first ?
Alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts, criminals, psychopaths, smokers, to name but just a few candidates.

Would it not be more just and fair ?

How does this address anything in my post?

Just because something happens eventually doesn't necessarily give you the right to intervene early.

If 50% of pregnancies miscarry and you conclude that it's therefore ok to intervene and terminate the pregnancies then what does that say about 100% of lives ending and whether we can intervene and terminate them early?

If, and I say "if", life starts at the point of conception what does it matter whether that proves to be a particularly risky period for it in how you treat it. And even if some people are arguing in bad faith, which is debatable, how does that affect your behaviour to the third party?

Ask whoever is making this argument.



It affects my behaviour towards the argument.

If I already think that abortion should be legal, and someone is arguing against that in bad faith, I am just not going to be all that interested in their argument.

I agree, conception is the only logical place to mark the start of life. Respect for life should start there.

But...

We have to balance this against another way of respecting human life. What will happen to society if we were to force millions of people to have children they clearly don't want? This would seem to clearly involve lots of suffering for many of these unwanted people, and those around them.

In an ideal fantasy world, nobody would be able to have a baby unless they were willing to complete a formal process similar to what people have to go through to adopt a child.

This single reform might do more to improve society, respect human life, than anything else we could do.

Don't me ask me how we would accomplish this, no idea.

That's a good way for a politician to behave, but I reckon a philosopher needs more than just "it's not very interesting" as a reason to dismiss an argument.