Complete definition of any word does not exist

[bahman]

So, you use words to understand, correct?

Yes. I also use words to communicate.

For example, you used words to provide an example of the word 'father', true?

I explain how we understand the word 'father'.

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?

I answered that in this thread.

[bahman]

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?

Yes.

If yes, then why?

This is subject of another thread.

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

Meaning is the understanding of a subject matter by use of language. Definition is a method to convey meaning using other words.

Why are 'you' (do NOT include me) able to understand the meaning of a word but not the definition of a word?

Because definition is just a method to convey a message. The target of understanding is meaning rather than definition.

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?

My point is that the definition of any word is either incomplete or circular.

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.

We understand the meaning while the definition is incomplete.

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.

But how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular? What is evil? Opposite of good. What is good? Opposite of evil. Does this tell you what the real definition of evil or good is? No.

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.

There is a need for further definitions of other words. As I already discussed one can always ask for the definition of the words uses in the definition.

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.

Yes. That is because you know meaning of other words. Otherwise, you have to keep searching.

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.

This simply doesn't follow because of the reason stated, you know the definition of other words in the definition.

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?

What I am saying is that the language is incomplete yet we are able to communite in order to understand. How we do it is subject of another thread. You are welcome to join our discussion in here.

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.

I understand the meaning of a word in a dictionary. The definition though is incomplete.

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.

I agree.

[Age]

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?

And what is the definition of a child for example?

The one born after a male and a female have pro-created.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Any truth (small t) is any thing that is agreed as being true. This can even be by just one alone.

So, real truth would be any thing that is agreed as being really true. This also can be by just one alone.

If, however, your question was asked in relation to the words I wrote, then that is, capital T, Truth, which just refers to what is agreed with by EVERY one instead.

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

No.

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

The 'real' word might be completely unnecessary. But sometimes when people tell me some thing and I ask them, "Is that true?", and they give me a reply I know is a lie. So, I will ask them again, "Is that really true?", and only then they will tell me the actual (and real) truth of things.

By the way, thanks for the clarifying questions, and thank you for highlighting my errors through the questioning.

[Age]

Yes. I also use words to communicate.


I explain how we understand the word 'father'.


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?

I answered that in this thread.

But I asked it in this thread

[Age]

Yes. I also use words to communicate.


I explain how we understand the word 'father'.


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?

I answered that in this thread.

So, you fill in the gaps through assuming, or abstract thinking. Okay fair enough.

Do you also admit that your thinking is based off of words, which, to you, are incomplete, but which to me are complete, enough?

[bahman]

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?

I answered that in this thread.

So, you fill in the gaps through assuming, or abstract thinking. Okay fair enough.

Do you also admit that your thinking is based off of words, which, to you, are incomplete, but which to me are complete, enough?

We are able to do so because the language is based on words and sentences which each points toward an abstract or real object.

[Age]

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?

Yes.

Well this explains your stance here.

If yes, then why?

This is subject of another thread.

WHY did you start ANOTHER thread?

Just curious, do you want me to reply, to your responses here, in the OTHER thread?

You do, after all, want me to find and see your responses for this thread, in the OTHER thread.

Or, maybe, I can start even ANOTHER thread again, and we can communicate through three different threads?

Why start ANOTHER thread, which is so closely related to this one?

But, in this thread you BELIEVE one thing, but apparently BELIEVE the exact opposite thing in the OTHER thread. For example, in this thread we can not communicate fully with words because words are incomplete, but in the other thread, we can communicate fully through language, which uses words.

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

Meaning is the understanding of a subject matter by use of language. Definition is a method to convey meaning using other words.

So, to you, 'meaning' can be complete but 'definitions' can not be because of words, yet they both use words. Is this correct?

Why are 'you' (do NOT include me) able to understand the meaning of a word but not the definition of a word?

Because definition is just a method to convey a message. The target of understanding is meaning rather than definition.

So, how do you reach the meaning, if to get to meaning you use words and their definitions, which you are 'trying to' argue the definitions of words are incomplete?

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?

My point is that the definition of any word is either incomplete or circular.

So, how did you arrive to use words to convey your message?

There MUST BE some sort of completeness to be able to use them now.

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.

We understand the meaning while the definition is incomplete.

Once again, do NOT speak for 'me' or you will continue to being completely and utterly as WRONG as you are now.

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.

But how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular?

Very easily.

Also, you just through telling us that you can understand the meaning of things because meaning is complete, BUT now you are asking me can I understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular?

You are just posing a question that you, yourself, can NOT answer.

You tell us how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular or incomplete? You are, after all, the ONE who is saying the meaning is complete but the definition is not.

What is evil? Opposite of good. What is good? Opposite of evil. Does this tell you what the real definition of evil or good is? No.

This tells me and SHOWS me just what stupid and ridiculous lengths human beings will go to, to 'try' and prove that their BELIEFS are true, right, and correct.

Are they the definitions you found in a dictionary, or are the definitions you just made up now to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY held BELIEFS?

Are you at all aware that human beings have invented a tool, called a dictionary, for the very purpose of NOT getting stuck in absurdity and ridiculousness as you are in now?

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.

There is a need for further definitions of other words.

Why do you think that you can tell me what I NEED?

I told you that there is NO need for further definition, for me, so that means that there is NO need for further definition. Can you understand this?

As I already discussed one can always ask for the definition of the words uses in the definition.

As I already informed you. Yes one CAN. But one would be a blithering IDIOT to, for the rest of their life, continually ask for the definitions of the words used in a definition. See, human beings do NOT do this BECAUSE they come to a limited. A limit of understanding and a limit of completeness, for them.

For example, there are countless things that you human beings COULD DO, but do NOT do because there is NO need to do them.

There is NO need to keep asking for the definitions of the words used. Do you comprehend this?

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.

Yes. That is because you know meaning of other words. Otherwise, you have to keep searching.

You are arguing against your own self now.

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.

This simply doesn't follow because of the reason stated, you know the definition of other words in the definition.

I KNOW the definition of other words as well as I KNOW the meaning.

BOTH are based off of words, themselves.

And, if and when I am Honest with myself, I very, very rarely ever KNOW the actual definition nor meaning of many, many words. I just have a presumption of what they mean and how they are defined.

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?

What I am saying is that the language is incomplete yet we are able to communite in order to understand.

Therefore, for you to be able to elaborate on and explain further, then you MUST HAVE some sort of completeness of the definitions and meanings of words you have just used.

Like I said you are PROVING yourself WRONG because you are using and doing the very thing that you are saying can not be.

How we do it is subject of another thread. You are welcome to join our discussion in here.

Is any one not welcome?

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.

I understand the meaning of a word in a dictionary. The definition though is incomplete.

Are you really NOT able to see the absurd contradictions you are making here?

Also are you really NOT aware that you are making these absurd contradictions in the hope that some of your current BELIEFS will be supported?

How do you understand the meaning of a word in a dictionary? Through some magical process, or through words, themselves? Or, do you really have some process that you can do it through that does NOT use words in any way, shape, nor form?

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.

I agree.

So, WHY do you keep saying things, which are obviously a distortion of what really happens?

While you keep doing this, then you will obviously keep seeing the distortion only.

Also, are you aware that IF you had just written that the definitions of words CAN have an incompleteness to them, and that this could be seen if any one wanted to, for the rest of their life, continually ask what is the definition of a word in the definition given to them, then I would have completely AGREED with you.

But because you want to keep insisting that a 'complete definition of any word does not exist, forever more', then I will question you until you SHOW that it is an absolutely AND completely True FACT.

But see the trouble and issue you are going to have to prove that this is a True FACT is you are going to have to have a complete definition for the words you use. So, are you any closer to seeing the absurdity and ridiculousness of what you are 'trying to' say and prove is absolutely True?

[Skepdick]

But I KNOW what 'Truth' and 'truth' IS.

You aren't the first or the last loon to walk this Earth.

[Age]

But I KNOW what 'Truth' and 'truth' IS.

You aren't the first or the last loon to walk this Earth.

But at least I can back up and support my claims.

[bahman]

Do you think or believe that the meaning of a word is complete while the definition of a word is incomplete?

Yes.

Well this explains your stance here.

I am glad to hear that we are in the same page.

If yes, then why?

This is subject of another thread.

WHY did you start ANOTHER thread?

Just curious, do you want me to reply, to your responses here, in the OTHER thread?

You do, after all, want me to find and see your responses for this thread, in the OTHER thread.

Or, maybe, I can start even ANOTHER thread again, and we can communicate through three different threads?

Why start ANOTHER thread, which is so closely related to this one?

But, in this thread you BELIEVE one thing, but apparently BELIEVE the exact opposite thing in the OTHER thread. For example, in this thread we can not communicate fully with words because words are incomplete, but in the other thread, we can communicate fully through language, which uses words.

I open another thread to keep things organized. In here, I mainly argue that the definition is incomplete and circular. In another thread, I discuss that meaning is complete since any definition, sentence, eventually point to abstract or real objects.

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

Meaning is the understanding of a subject matter by use of language. Definition is a method to convey meaning using other words.

So, to you, 'meaning' can be complete but 'definitions' can not be because of words, yet they both use words. Is this correct?

True. The definition is incomplete or circular because we always use other words to define another word. Meaning is, however, is complete since the definition always points to abstract or real objects.

Why are 'you' (do NOT include me) able to understand the meaning of a word but not the definition of a word?

Because definition is just a method to convey a message. The target of understanding is meaning rather than definition.

So, how do you reach the meaning, if to get to meaning you use words and their definitions, which you are 'trying to' argue the definitions of words are incomplete?

Abstract and real objects are our only inputs. Language is our tool to communicate. Our understanding, however, is complete since it is based on abstract and real objects. Let me give you an example: "Rainy" is a word. We already agree on the fact that the definition of any word is incomplete since one can always ask for the definition of other words that are used in the definition of the word. Rainy is, however, an abstract object that we both know what does it mean so we can understand the meaning given definition knowing the fact that we have a common understanding of "rainy".

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?

My point is that the definition of any word is either incomplete or circular.

So, how did you arrive to use words to convey your message?

There MUST BE some sort of completeness to be able to use them now.

Abstract and real objects allow us to have a common understanding while we use incomplete language. Abstract and real objects are the base for communication.

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.

We understand the meaning while the definition is incomplete.

Once again, do NOT speak for 'me' or you will continue to being completely and utterly as WRONG as you are now.

Ok.

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.

But how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular?

Very easily.

Also, you just through telling us that you can understand the meaning of things because meaning is complete, BUT now you are asking me can I understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular?

You are just posing a question that you, yourself, can NOT answer.

You tell us how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular or incomplete? You are, after all, the ONE who is saying the meaning is complete but the definition is not.

Of course, I have an answer to that question. Abstract and real objects are the base for any communication.

What is evil? Opposite of good. What is good? Opposite of evil. Does this tell you what the real definition of evil or good is? No.

This tells me and SHOWS me just what stupid and ridiculous lengths human beings will go to, to 'try' and prove that their BELIEFS are true, right, and correct.

Are they the definitions you found in a dictionary, or are the definitions you just made up now to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY held BELIEFS?

Are you at all aware that human beings have invented a tool, called a dictionary, for the very purpose of NOT getting stuck in absurdity and ridiculousness as you are in now?

We already agree that the definition of any word is incomplete or circular since one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of the word. Did you forget? What is the definition of evil if you are not satisfied.

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.

There is a need for further definitions of other words.

Why do you think that you can tell me what I NEED?

I told you that there is NO need for further definition, for me, so that means that there is NO need for further definition. Can you understand this?

What is the definition of evil then?

As I already discussed one can always ask for the definition of the words uses in the definition.

As I already informed you. Yes one CAN. But one would be a blithering IDIOT to, for the rest of their life, continually ask for the definitions of the words used in a definition. See, human beings do NOT do this BECAUSE they come to a limited. A limit of understanding and a limit of completeness, for them.

For example, there are countless things that you human beings COULD DO, but do NOT do because there is NO need to do them.

There is NO need to keep asking for the definitions of the words used. Do you comprehend this?

This means that you didn't get my point. You, of course, understand the meaning of the word given a definition. That is not because the definition is complete. That is because the definition of any word is based on abstract and real objects.

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.

Yes. That is because you know meaning of other words. Otherwise, you have to keep searching.

You are arguing against your own self now.

I don't.

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.

This simply doesn't follow because of the reason stated, you know the definition of other words in the definition.

I KNOW the definition of other words as well as I KNOW the meaning.

BOTH are based off of words, themselves.

And, if and when I am Honest with myself, I very, very rarely ever KNOW the actual definition nor meaning of many, many words. I just have a presumption of what they mean and how they are defined.

We can communicate meaning based on words and abstract and real objects. Meaning is not based on only words.

So, really are you saying that you can NOT elaborate on nor explain what it is that you are actually saying and meaning?

What I am saying is that the language is incomplete yet we are able to communite in order to understand.

Therefore, for you to be able to elaborate on and explain further, then you MUST HAVE some sort of completeness of the definitions and meanings of words you have just used.

Like I said you are PROVING yourself WRONG because you are using and doing the very thing that you are saying can not be.

I did provide my elaboration in previous comments. Language is incomplete. Language together with abstract and real object is complete.

How we do it is subject of another thread. You are welcome to join our discussion in here.

Is any one not welcome?

Of course not.

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.

I understand the meaning of a word in a dictionary. The definition though is incomplete.

Are you really NOT able to see the absurd contradictions you are making here?

Also are you really NOT aware that you are making these absurd contradictions in the hope that some of your current BELIEFS will be supported?

How do you understand the meaning of a word in a dictionary? Through some magical process, or through words, themselves? Or, do you really have some process that you can do it through that does NOT use words in any way, shape, nor form?

I understand the meaning of the word because the meaning is based on abstract and real objects.

[Age]

Yes.

Well this explains your stance here.

I am glad to hear that we are in the same page.

This is subject of another thread.

WHY did you start ANOTHER thread?

Just curious, do you want me to reply, to your responses here, in the OTHER thread?

You do, after all, want me to find and see your responses for this thread, in the OTHER thread.

Or, maybe, I can start even ANOTHER thread again, and we can communicate through three different threads?

Why start ANOTHER thread, which is so closely related to this one?

But, in this thread you BELIEVE one thing, but apparently BELIEVE the exact opposite thing in the OTHER thread. For example, in this thread we can not communicate fully with words because words are incomplete, but in the other thread, we can communicate fully through language, which uses words.

I open another thread to keep things organized. In here, I mainly argue that the definition is incomplete and circular. In another thread, I discuss that meaning is complete since any definition, sentence, eventually point to abstract or real objects.

Sounds like you are just confusing and making perplexed 'that' what is REALLY just very simple and easy.

Opening one thread to prove one point, but yet opening another thread to prove another point, which in a way discredits the other point in the other thread does not sound like keeping things organized, but rather like keeping things dishonest, closed, and secretive.

But each to their own.

Meaning is the understanding of a subject matter by use of language. Definition is a method to convey meaning using other words.

So, to you, 'meaning' can be complete but 'definitions' can not be because of words, yet they both use words. Is this correct?

True. The definition is incomplete or circular because we always use other words to define another word. Meaning is, however, is complete since the definition always points to abstract or real objects.

The absurdity is just getting more complex but also much more OBVIOUS.

Because definition is just a method to convey a message. The target of understanding is meaning rather than definition.

So, how do you reach the meaning, if to get to meaning you use words and their definitions, which you are 'trying to' argue the definitions of words are incomplete?

Abstract and real objects are our only inputs. Language is our tool to communicate. Our understanding, however, is complete since it is based on abstract and real objects. Let me give you an example: "Rainy" is a word. We already agree on the fact that the definition of any word is incomplete

Hang on. WHEN have 'we' already agreed on any such so called "fact" as you are proposing here?

What made you make that most SILLY and ABSURD assumption, AND, jump to that most IDIOTIC of conclusions?

since one can always ask for the definition of other words that are used in the definition of the word.

And as I have previously stated; One can always ALSO ask for the meaning of other words that are used in the definition or meaning of the word.

There is absolutely NO difference between doing the same thing with definitions or with meanings.

If continually asking for one is evidence and makes your argument valid, then doing the exact same with other would be valid as well. You can NOT have it BOTH ways.

Rainy is, however, an abstract object that we both know what does it mean so we can understand the meaning given definition knowing the fact that we have a common understanding of "rainy".

This is becoming hilarious now.

We both understand the meaning of 'rainy', so HOW do we both understand the meaning of 'rainy'?

Could this be because we understand the definition of what the word 'rainy' means?

So, how did you arrive to use words to convey your message?

There MUST BE some sort of completeness to be able to use them now.

Abstract and real objects allow us to have a common understanding while we use incomplete language. Abstract and real objects are the base for communication.

Well what did you think was the basis for communication BEFORE, what was NOT in thought and the non real or non-existing objects?

It appears that you are going to all lengths now to 'TRY TO' "justify" your original stance, which was OBVIOUSLY WRONG from the outset.

Once again, do NOT speak for 'me' or you will continue to being completely and utterly as WRONG as you are now.

Ok.

Very easily.

Also, you just through telling us that you can understand the meaning of things because meaning is complete, BUT now you are asking me can I understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular?

You are just posing a question that you, yourself, can NOT answer.

You tell us how you can understand the meaning of a word if the definition is circular or incomplete? You are, after all, the ONE who is saying the meaning is complete but the definition is not.

Of course, I have an answer to that question. Abstract and real objects are the base for any communication.

What do you think definitions are based off?

What is actual but NOT real?

Your assertions are getting more and more illogical and nonsensical?

WHEN, and IF, you STOP 'trying to' "justify" your already HELD position and stance, then you will also STOP being so irrational.

This tells me and SHOWS me just what stupid and ridiculous lengths human beings will go to, to 'try' and prove that their BELIEFS are true, right, and correct.

Are they the definitions you found in a dictionary, or are the definitions you just made up now to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY held BELIEFS?

Are you at all aware that human beings have invented a tool, called a dictionary, for the very purpose of NOT getting stuck in absurdity and ridiculousness as you are in now?

We already agree that the definition of any word is incomplete or circular since one can always ask for the meaning of the words in the definition of the word. Did you forget? What is the definition of evil if you are not satisfied.

WHERE did you get this idea that I have "AGREED"?

'you', human beings, really do LOVE to make up ASSUMPTIONS and jump to CONCLUSIONS before you have any actual evidence for things.

Yes one can ALWAYS ask for the meaning of the words in the definitions of words, just like one can ALWAYS ask for the definition of the words in the definition of words. This was the point I MADE, to SHOW why your BELIEF that definitions are incomplete because of this very reason but meanings are complete is such a RIDICULOUS BELIEF to have.

ONE definition for the word 'evil' is profoundly immoral and wicked. There I AM satisfied. So, now what does this prove (if any thing)?

Why do you think that you can tell me what I NEED?

I told you that there is NO need for further definition, for me, so that means that there is NO need for further definition. Can you understand this?

What is the definition of evil then?

But there is NO 'the' definition for ANY word. Are you under some sort of illusion that there IS?

A definition for the word 'evil' is morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant.

As I already informed you. Yes one CAN. But one would be a blithering IDIOT to, for the rest of their life, continually ask for the definitions of the words used in a definition. See, human beings do NOT do this BECAUSE they come to a limited. A limit of understanding and a limit of completeness, for them.

For example, there are countless things that you human beings COULD DO, but do NOT do because there is NO need to do them.

There is NO need to keep asking for the definitions of the words used. Do you comprehend this?

This means that you didn't get my point. You, of course, understand the meaning of the word given a definition. That is not because the definition is complete. That is because the definition of any word is based on abstract and real objects.

If you are 'trying to' fight for your argument, then you have to say things that argue for and support your stance.

What you are saying here does not. Unless of course I have got EVERY thing backwards or I am NOT understanding you.

Let us see if I can follow your logic and reasoning; (IF you provide examples with and for the below now, then that may help).

I understand the meaning of 'the' word. (Now what is 'the' word?)

I understand the meaning of the word given 'a' definition. (Now what is 'a' definition?)

I understand the meaning of the word given a definition, NOT because 'the' definition is complete. (Now if I understand the meaning of the word given a definition not because the definition is complete, then WHAT IS IT that caused me to understand the meaning of the word given a definition?)

I understand because the definition of any word is based on abstract and real objects. (Now the reason I understand the meaning of any word, given a definition, is because the definition is based on 'abstract and real objects'. Is this correct?)

If yes, then this implies the 'abstract and real objects' are NOT complete.

If this is what you are now saying and meaning, then how can a 'real object' NOT be complete?

If this is NOT what you are now saying and meaning, then what are you really saying and meaning, now?

I don't.

Okay. If you insist, then it MUST BE true, correct?

We can communicate meaning based on words and abstract and real objects. Meaning is not based on only words.

HOW is the meaning, which is based on the 'abstract' and the 'real objects', KNOWN, if NOT through and by words alone?

Are you aware that the 'abstract' is words alone? Are you aware that the 'real objects' are defined through and by words alone?

You can not point to a 'real object', and then expect me to have any idea of what it is that you are communicating other than through and by words ALONE.

Definition AND meaning is based on ONLY words.

I did provide my elaboration in previous comments. Language is incomplete. Language together with abstract and real object is complete.

There can not be 'language' without words. Words are used to define objects. Words exist in the abstract. The abstract is made up of words.

What is it that you want people to accept and agree with exactly here?

Of course not.


I understand the meaning of the word because the meaning is based on abstract and real objects.

But HOW do you get from the 'real object' to the 'meaning'? If not through 'words', then HOW?

HOW can you understand that that 'real object' over there, for example, is a 'tree'? IF you do NOT know the word 'tree', and do NOT know what the word 'tree' means, then HOW would you KNOW that 'it' is a 'tree'?

'it' just remains an 'it', until the definition of what 'it' is KNOWN. Once the definition is KNOWN, then the definition IS COMPLETE.

In order to be able to KNOW what the word 'tree' means, you firstly HAVE TO have an idea of what the definition of the word 'tree' IS.

To KNOW, to have an idea, or to think abstractly, you USE WORDS.

And, if you do NOT use 'words', to think, to know, to gain meaning, then what do 'you', personally, use?

Also, is there any actual point and purpose in 'trying to' formulate an argument, which proves once and for all that 'definitions' are incomplete while meanings are complete?

If you are 'trying to' prove that 'you' can not communicate fully and thus successfully through words and language, then you do NOT 'have to' prove this.
You have ALREADY proven this.

The RIGHT words NEED to be found first BEFORE you could communicate fully ALL of what it is that you want to say.

The very reason WHY I am here, in this forum, is to learn how to communicate better so that what I want to say and express can be FULLY heard and understood.

Once the RIGHT definitions for the words to be used are found and shared, then language can and will communicate FULLY what it is that I want to say and be heard. When this is done, then this WILL BE complete.

In order to fulfill and complete this goal I will use the True, Right and Correct WORDS, themselves.