Complete definition of any word does not exist

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by bahman » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:45 pm
To me EVERY word has a complete definition.
I think you are mixing understanding by definition.
Why do you think this?
Because we are able to understand the meaning of the word while the definition is incomplete.
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
Let's see, what is the definition of father?
'the' definition is whatever 'you' want it to be.

However, 'a' definition is; the male gender in relation to their child or children.
And what is the definition of a child for example? As you see, no matter what your definition is one can always ask about the definition of the words you use in definition. This process at the end is either circular or is incomplete.
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
That is how we understand things.
Again if you speak for 'you' only, instead of for 'you' and 'me', then you will not be as wrong as you are, as often as you are.
Huh?
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
You cannot possibly have a complete definition for any word since one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of the word.
Let them ask. There is only a finite amount of words anyway.

As I said when the complete (proper and correct) definition for ALL words fit together perfectly to SHOW the real and actual Truth of things, then that is the complete picture of things. When HOW to LOOK AT and SEE the actual and real Truth of things is FULLY understood and KNOWN, then It is ALL complete.

Also, just because one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of a word, then that in no way infers that I can not possibly have a complete definition.

Maybe because you are insistant that it is NOT possible at all to have a 'complete' definition of a word, then you might have a different definition or a different understanding of what the word 'complete' means, so how do you define the word 'complete', or if you do not like to provide definitions, then what example do you have for the word 'complete'?
By complete I mean there is no need for further definition of other words used in the definition.
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:45 pm
You may understand things that way. But I understand words, firstly from past experiences, and also from examples, defintions, and meanings.

But sentences use words and you just said;
Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.

So, if sentences use words, and, complete definition of any words does not exist, then how could you understand the words just in the context of more words, or a sentence?

Each and EVERY word in that sentence, according to your logic and conclusion, would also not have a complete definition. Therefore, what happens now?

Also, even your sentence stating;
We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

Would not have a complete definition. It is a sentence, which is just made up of words, obviously. Therefore, no complete definition exists in your sentence, thus there is no meaning nor a correct and proper sufficient conclusion also. Your sentence is made up words, with each and every one of them not having a complete definition, that is; IF your, so called, "logic" and conclusion is true, right, and/or correct. But we will NEVER KNOW, because according to you NO complete definition exists.

But you are not able to SEE what I am saying here, and NONE of this would make any sense to you, because I used words to describe things here to you.

SEE, any one who says things like;

There is NO complete definition of words.
Truth does not exist.
God is an impossibility to be real. Or,
Things can not be known.

ALL FAIL, because these ones are using the very actual THINGS that they are 'trying to' argue and fight against.
I think I convey my understanding in the previous comments, this post and another post in reply to your another post.
You have, so far, used words to convey your understanding, which infers that you also understand things BECAUSE OF words.
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.

commonsense
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by commonsense » Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:40 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.
This is quite right for any of us who take it that “complete “ describes something that is final or absolute, yet for the relativists among us, “complete“, ironically, is not absolute.
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete.
Again, this is correct, at least in the face of definitions that must be final, yet an incomplete or circular process might suggest that a word’s definition may be relatively complete or relatively absolute.

But to say that something is somewhat complete or absolute is contradictory. We’re down the rabbit hole. Unless we can find a way to explain “relative to what?“. Well, relative to absolute, of course!
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father.
It is true that we distill meaning from multiple instances of a given object or concept. But what is critical here is that there is a consensus of meaning.

Most of us can point to a horse and say that it is a “horse” and not a “dog“. And if I were to believe that any four-legged creature is a “horse“, I would not make that distinction.Most would say that I’m crazy, or eccentric or out of the norm— all because I did not abide by a consensus.

Without consensus, words could not communicate information.
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.
Our understanding of the context of a sentence depends on our understanding of the words or of the circumstances that make up that context.

Your walking out of the dentist office, and saying, “That hurts,” would likely lead me to believe that you had just experienced some painful dental work.

Imagine:
You, “That hurts.“
Me, “Is that what happened just now?“
You, “Yes. I think I need crutches.“
Me, “What are you talking about?”
You, “My ankle, of course. Don’t you see that I’m limping?”

Skepdick
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Skepdick » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:18 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
Q.E.D You know how to use the word/notion of "truth" and "true", but you don't know what truth us.

Nobody does.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by bahman » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:39 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:40 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.
This is quite right for any of us who take it that “complete “ describes something that is final or absolute, yet for the relativists among us, “complete“, ironically, is not absolute.
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete.
Again, this is correct, at least in the face of definitions that must be final, yet an incomplete or circular process might suggest that a word’s definition may be relatively complete or relatively absolute.

But to say that something is somewhat complete or absolute is contradictory. We’re down the rabbit hole. Unless we can find a way to explain “relative to what?“. Well, relative to absolute, of course!
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father.
It is true that we distill meaning from multiple instances of a given object or concept. But what is critical here is that there is a consensus of meaning.

Most of us can point to a horse and say that it is a “horse” and not a “dog“. And if I were to believe that any four-legged creature is a “horse“, I would not make that distinction.Most would say that I’m crazy, or eccentric or out of the norm— all because I did not abide by a consensus.

Without consensus, words could not communicate information.
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.
Our understanding of the context of a sentence depends on our understanding of the words or of the circumstances that make up that context.

Your walking out of the dentist office, and saying, “That hurts,” would likely lead me to believe that you had just experienced some painful dental work.

Imagine:
You, “That hurts.“
Me, “Is that what happened just now?“
You, “Yes. I think I need crutches.“
Me, “What are you talking about?”
You, “My ankle, of course. Don’t you see that I’m limping?”
What does the relativism mean in this context?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by bahman » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:41 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
Q.E.D You know how to use the word/notion of "truth" and "true", but you don't know what truth us.

Nobody does.
It is amazing how we are able to communicate ideas through something which is incomplete and circular, language. It seems like a paradox in language.

commonsense
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by commonsense » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:59 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
What does the relativism mean in this context?
Truth relativism seems applicable to the discussion about absolute definitions inasmuch as definitions are relative to a person’s viewpoint. There are no absolute definitions because although definitions are offered as the truth of what things are, there is no absolute truth according to the relativist point of view.

commonsense
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by commonsense » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:04 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
What does the relativism mean in this context?
Truth relativism seems applicable to the discussion about absolute definitions inasmuch as definitions are relative to a person’s viewpoint. There are no absolute definitions because although definitions are offered as the truth of what things are, there is no absolute truth according to the relativist point of view.

Oh. Did you mean the context of my post, generally or the specific example of a misinterpreted context?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by bahman » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:10 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:59 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
What does the relativism mean in this context?
Truth relativism seems applicable to the discussion about absolute definitions inasmuch as definitions are relative to a person’s viewpoint. There are no absolute definitions because although definitions are offered as the truth of what things are, there is no absolute truth according to the relativist point of view.
I see. Thanks.

Age
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:08 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:44 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:58 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:52 pm

My father for example. I experienced my father as a separate object and distinguishable from other things. We know that the word is pointing to an external object. That is how I say we understand a word. We add the words together and make a sentence that is pointing to a situation for example. We also have common experience of abstract objects. That adds to our language too.
So, you use words to understand, correct?
Yes. I also use words to communicate.
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:58 pm
For example, you used words to provide an example of the word 'father', true?
I explain how we understand the word 'father'.
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:58 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:52 pm

I am waiting for your response.
If you use words, like if you just did to provide 'examples', then you are back stuck in your circle of dilemma that you created, that is; where you believe a complete definition of any word does NOT exist.
As I mentioned we understand the meanings of words either through examples or in the context of a sentence. In the later case, we are able to fill the gap between the definition which is not complete and understanding.
Explain exactly how 'you' fill the so called "gap between the definition, which is supposedly not complete and understanding"?

How can a sentence, which is just made up of MORE words, which you say words do NOT have a complete definition, actually fill in the gap between definitions?

What are you "filling the gap of definitions with exactly"? Surely words would not suffice?

Obviously if the "gap of definitions" is because words, themselves, do not have a complete definition, then using MORE words would surely only be making the "gap of definitions" bigger, wider, and further apart, would it not?

Age
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:22 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm

I think you are mixing understanding by definition.
Why do you think this?
Because we are able to understand the meaning of the word while the definition is incomplete.
Do you think or believe that the meaning of a word is complete while the definition of a word is incomplete?

If yes, then why?

Also, what is the difference between a meaning of a word, and, a definition of a word?

Why are 'you' (do NOT include me) able to understand the meaning of a word but not the definition of a word?
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
Let's see, what is the definition of father?
'the' definition is whatever 'you' want it to be.

However, 'a' definition is; the male gender in relation to their child or children.
And what is the definition of a child for example?
The one born after a male and a female have pro-created.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
As you see, no matter what your definition is one can always ask about the definition of the words you use in definition.
OF COURSE one can do that. You did NOT have to provide an example to SHOW this. This just goes without saying. There are also many things that one can do, if they so wish to.

I could have just done the EXACT SAME thing with your "example" of 'father'. I could have just kept asking you to provide another example of the words you use in your examples. So, what is the difference?

One can also ask, what is the 'meaning' of a word, and for every answer given, that one could keep asking what is the meaning of any word they choose to, and keep doing this for as long as they like or are able to.

But what is your point?

Words still do have a complete definition as well as a complete meaning. That is; if that is what you want them to have, or, if you like you can make the definition AND the meanings of words incomplete, IF that is really what you so wish to. You are free to choose either way.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
This process at the end is either circular or is incomplete.
And really a very rather ridiculous and stupid thing to do, from my perspective.

EVERY thing eventually has to circle back because this is exactly HOW the Universe works. It circles back onto Its Self, and when you have got to this point and can SEE this, then you will also SEE that that is exactly how It is COMPLETE.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
That is how we understand things.

Again if you speak for 'you' only, instead of for 'you' and 'me', then you will not be as wrong as you are, as often as you are.
Huh?
Double huh?

Do you not understand what, 'Speak for yourself' only means?

If, for example, you use the word 'we', then you are 'trying to' speak for more than just 'you' only. When you do this, then 'you' are 'trying to' speak for what "others" do, and unless you KNOW with absolute certainty what EVERY one does, then what you say will more likely be WRONG, and the more often you do it, then the more often you will be WRONG.

For example, 'I' do NOT understand things the way you say 'we' do. 'I' understand words HAVE a complete definition, so I understand things this way. So, what you said about "how we understand things" and you include 'me' in that 'we', then you are WRONG. Because I understand things differently from the way you are 'trying to' say " 'we' do". But maybe you do NOT include 'me' in that 'we'. We will have to wait and see.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:19 pm
You cannot possibly have a complete definition for any word since one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of the word.
Let them ask. There is only a finite amount of words anyway.

As I said when the complete (proper and correct) definition for ALL words fit together perfectly to SHOW the real and actual Truth of things, then that is the complete picture of things. When HOW to LOOK AT and SEE the actual and real Truth of things is FULLY understood and KNOWN, then It is ALL complete.

Also, just because one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of a word, then that in no way infers that I can not possibly have a complete definition.

Maybe because you are insistant that it is NOT possible at all to have a 'complete' definition of a word, then you might have a different definition or a different understanding of what the word 'complete' means, so how do you define the word 'complete', or if you do not like to provide definitions, then what example do you have for the word 'complete'?
By complete I mean there is no need for further definition of other words used in the definition.
There is NO need for further definitions of other words you have used here, so, to me, it is complete. So, see it is very easily and very simply done.

When you look for a definition of a word in a dictionary, if you do, there is obviously NO need for further definition of other words used in the definition.

If there was a NEED, then you would obviously still be looking for further definitions.

You are NOT still looking for further definitions of other words.

Therefore, there is NO need, for you, because the definitions AND meanings of words is complete.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
So, really are you saying that you can NOT elaborate on nor explain what it is that you are actually saying and meaning?

Also, if you are unable to provide a complete definition of ANY word that you use, then have you heard of a dictionary. I found them very useful in better understanding the words I use.

In fact I found that ALL words actually form a complete circle to describe and define ALL-THERE-IS. This is what helped me to recognize and SEE the actual and real Truth of things. This also helped me in discovering how the Universe, Itself, actually works as well.

The words you use, and especially the definitions and meanings you have behind the words you use, have a much more powerful effect on 'you' then you actually realize yet.

For example, if you say that some thing can NOT happen, (like a complete definition of a word can NOT happen), and you BELIEVE that this is True, then that is what will happen, and conversely, if you say that some thing can be done, and you really BELIEVE that it can be, then that is what will happen. Unless, of course, there are examples to SHOW otherwise.

Age
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:26 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
Q.E.D You know how to use the word/notion of "truth" and "true", but you don't know what truth us.

Nobody does.
But I KNOW what 'Truth' and 'truth' IS.

Just because 'you', "skepdick" do NOT know some things does NOT mean that EVERY one does NOT also KNOW those things.

Also just because you BELIEVE that 'truth' can not be KNOWN, does NOT make it real NOR true.

Age
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:28 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:41 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
Q.E.D You know how to use the word/notion of "truth" and "true", but you don't know what truth us.

Nobody does.
It is amazing how we are able to communicate ideas through something which is incomplete and circular, language. It seems like a paradox in language.
What does the word 'paradox' mean to 'you'?

To me, the word 'paradox' means nearly the exact opposite of how "others" appear to use the word.

Also, although language is circular and this in fact is what makes it complete, therefore, language, to me, is NOT incomplete.

To me, language is perfect. 'you', human beings, have just NOT learned how to use it properly and correctly YET.

Age
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:33 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:59 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
What does the relativism mean in this context?
Truth relativism seems applicable to the discussion about absolute definitions inasmuch as definitions are relative to a person’s viewpoint. There are no absolute definitions because although definitions are offered as the truth of what things are, there is no absolute truth according to the relativist point of view.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, depending on HOW one is observing, then there could be absolute Truth existing as well as absolutely just relative truth existing at the exact same time.

commonsense
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by commonsense » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:37 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:22 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm

Why do you think this?
Because we are able to understand the meaning of the word while the definition is incomplete.
Do you think or believe that the meaning of a word is complete while the definition of a word is incomplete?

If yes, then why?

Also, what is the difference between a meaning of a word, and, a definition of a word?

Why are 'you' (do NOT include me) able to understand the meaning of a word but not the definition of a word?
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm

'the' definition is whatever 'you' want it to be.

However, 'a' definition is; the male gender in relation to their child or children.
And what is the definition of a child for example?
The one born after a male and a female have pro-created.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
As you see, no matter what your definition is one can always ask about the definition of the words you use in definition.
OF COURSE one can do that. You did NOT have to provide an example to SHOW this. This just goes without saying. There are also many things that one can do, if they so wish to.

I could have just done the EXACT SAME thing with your "example" of 'father'. I could have just kept asking you to provide another example of the words you use in your examples. So, what is the difference?

One can also ask, what is the 'meaning' of a word, and for every answer given, that one could keep asking what is the meaning of any word they choose to, and keep doing this for as long as they like or are able to.

But what is your point?

Words still do have a complete definition as well as a complete meaning. That is; if that is what you want them to have, or, if you like you can make the definition AND the meanings of words incomplete, IF that is really what you so wish to. You are free to choose either way.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
This process at the end is either circular or is incomplete.
And really a very rather ridiculous and stupid thing to do, from my perspective.

EVERY thing eventually has to circle back because this is exactly HOW the Universe works. It circles back onto Its Self, and when you have got to this point and can SEE this, then you will also SEE that that is exactly how It is COMPLETE.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm

Again if you speak for 'you' only, instead of for 'you' and 'me', then you will not be as wrong as you are, as often as you are.
Huh?
Double huh?

Do you not understand what, 'Speak for yourself' only means?

If, for example, you use the word 'we', then you are 'trying to' speak for more than just 'you' only. When you do this, then 'you' are 'trying to' speak for what "others" do, and unless you KNOW with absolute certainty what EVERY one does, then what you say will more likely be WRONG, and the more often you do it, then the more often you will be WRONG.

For example, 'I' do NOT understand things the way you say 'we' do. 'I' understand words HAVE a complete definition, so I understand things this way. So, what you said about "how we understand things" and you include 'me' in that 'we', then you are WRONG. Because I understand things differently from the way you are 'trying to' say " 'we' do". But maybe you do NOT include 'me' in that 'we'. We will have to wait and see.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm

Let them ask. There is only a finite amount of words anyway.

As I said when the complete (proper and correct) definition for ALL words fit together perfectly to SHOW the real and actual Truth of things, then that is the complete picture of things. When HOW to LOOK AT and SEE the actual and real Truth of things is FULLY understood and KNOWN, then It is ALL complete.

Also, just because one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of a word, then that in no way infers that I can not possibly have a complete definition.

Maybe because you are insistant that it is NOT possible at all to have a 'complete' definition of a word, then you might have a different definition or a different understanding of what the word 'complete' means, so how do you define the word 'complete', or if you do not like to provide definitions, then what example do you have for the word 'complete'?
By complete I mean there is no need for further definition of other words used in the definition.
There is NO need for further definitions of other words you have used here, so, to me, it is complete. So, see it is very easily and very simply done.

When you look for a definition of a word in a dictionary, if you do, there is obviously NO need for further definition of other words used in the definition.

If there was a NEED, then you would obviously still be looking for further definitions.

You are NOT still looking for further definitions of other words.

Therefore, there is NO need, for you, because the definitions AND meanings of words is complete.
bahman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm
True. But that doesn't mean that I can provide a complete definition of any word.
So, really are you saying that you can NOT elaborate on nor explain what it is that you are actually saying and meaning?

Also, if you are unable to provide a complete definition of ANY word that you use, then have you heard of a dictionary. I found them very useful in better understanding the words I use.

In fact I found that ALL words actually form a complete circle to describe and define ALL-THERE-IS. This is what helped me to recognize and SEE the actual and real Truth of things. This also helped me in discovering how the Universe, Itself, actually works as well.

The words you use, and especially the definitions and meanings you have behind the words you use, have a much more powerful effect on 'you' then you actually realize yet.

For example, if you say that some thing can NOT happen, (like a complete definition of a word can NOT happen), and you BELIEVE that this is True, then that is what will happen, and conversely, if you say that some thing can be done, and you really BELIEVE that it can be, then that is what will happen. Unless, of course, there are examples to SHOW otherwise.
What is the real truth?

Do you think there can also be an unreal truth? If so, what is it?

(No argument intended here. Just asking what you think.)

commonsense
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Complete definition of any word does not exist

Post by commonsense » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:40 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:33 pm
commonsense wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:59 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:18 am
What does the relativism mean in this context?
Truth relativism seems applicable to the discussion about absolute definitions inasmuch as definitions are relative to a person’s viewpoint. There are no absolute definitions because although definitions are offered as the truth of what things are, there is no absolute truth according to the relativist point of view.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, depending on HOW one is observing, then there could be absolute Truth existing as well as absolutely just relative truth existing at the exact same time.
Precisely.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests