Complete definition of any word does not exist

[bahman]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words. The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete. We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father. We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

[Skepdick]

Complete definition don't exist, and yet we understand words. That's because language is recursive and self-reinforcing.

When you define a word the definition itself is called metalanguage.
The word being defined is called object language.

When you re-define words - you are quite literally inventing new meaning for those words.

[Age]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words. The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete. We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father. We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

To understand the word 'father', then what is an example of 'father'?

According to your conclusion, and your logic, that got you to that conclusion, may well be proven wrong, invalid, and/or unsound when, and if, you answer my clarifying question here.

We will wait and see.

[Age]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.

To me EVERY word has a complete definition.

The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete.

To me, the definitions of ALL words is complete when the the proper and correct definitions of ALL the words being used paints thee one and only True picture of Life, Itself,

When the words and their definitions back themselves up and they have ALL come together and back onto themselves forming a complete and easily SEEN fully True circle of ALL-THERE-IS, then the completeness of things is KNOWN.

We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father.

You may understand things that way. But I understand words, firstly from past experiences, and also from examples, defintions, and meanings.

We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

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.

[bahman]

Complete definition don't exist, and yet we understand words. That's because language is recursive and self-reinforcing.

When you define a word the definition itself is called metalanguage.
The word being defined is called object language.

When you re-define words - you are quite literally inventing new meaning for those words.

I see. Thanks for the links.

[Sculptor]

...like a father. ..

Er?

[bahman]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words. The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete. We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father. We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

To understand the word 'father', then what is an example of 'father'?

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.

According to your conclusion, and your logic, that got you to that conclusion, may well be proven wrong, invalid, and/or unsound when, and if, you answer my clarifying question here.

We will wait and see.

I am waiting for your response.

[bahman]

...like a father. ..

Er?

A father is an abstract object which is needed to categorize father from other things abstractly. My father is a real object. We have "my father" as an abstract object too. We have the ability to relate an abstract object to a real object. That is how we understand reality through language.

[bahman]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.

To me EVERY word has a complete definition.

I think you are mixing understanding by definition. Let's see, what is the definition of father?

The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete.

To me, the definitions of ALL words is complete when the the proper and correct definitions of ALL the words being used paints thee one and only True picture of Life, Itself,

When the words and their definitions back themselves up and they have ALL come together and back onto themselves forming a complete and easily SEEN fully True circle of ALL-THERE-IS, then the completeness of things is KNOWN.

Look, a language is a set of sentences in which each sentence point to a situation. That is how we understand things. 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.

We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father.

You may understand things that way. But I understand words, firstly from past experiences, and also from examples, defintions, and meanings.

We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

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.

[Sculptor]

...like a father. ..

Er?

A father is an abstract object which is needed to categorize father from other things abstractly. My father is a real object. We have "my father" as an abstract object too. We have the ability to relate an abstract object to a real object. That is how we understand reality through language.

Toc, Toc!

[bahman]

Er?

A father is an abstract object which is needed to categorize father from other things abstractly. My father is a real object. We have "my father" as an abstract object too. We have the ability to relate an abstract object to a real object. That is how we understand reality through language.

Toc, Toc!

What do you mean?

[Impenitent]

"I said Father Washington, you're all mixed up Collecting sinners in an old tin cup..." -Supertramp

-Imp

[Age]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words. The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete. We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father. We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

To understand the word 'father', then what is an example of 'father'?

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?

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

According to your conclusion, and your logic, that got you to that conclusion, may well be proven wrong, invalid, and/or unsound when, and if, you answer my clarifying question here.

We will wait and see.

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.

[Age]

Complete definition of any word does not exist since we always define a word in terms of other words.

To me EVERY word has a complete definition.

I think you are mixing understanding by definition.

Why do you think this?

And what do you actually mean by 'mixing understanding by definition'?

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.

The process of defining any word is eventually either circular or incomplete.

To me, the definitions of ALL words is complete when the the proper and correct definitions of ALL the words being used paints thee one and only True picture of Life, Itself,

When the words and their definitions back themselves up and they have ALL come together and back onto themselves forming a complete and easily SEEN fully True circle of ALL-THERE-IS, then the completeness of things is KNOWN.

Look, a language is a set of sentences in which each sentence point to a situation.

If that is what you see, then okay.

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.

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'?

We, however, understand words because we have examples of them, like a father.

You may understand things that way. But I understand words, firstly from past experiences, and also from examples, defintions, and meanings.

We also understand the words in the context of a sentence.

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.

[bahman]

To understand the word 'father', then what is an example of 'father'?

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.

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

I explain how we understand the word 'father'.

According to your conclusion, and your logic, that got you to that conclusion, may well be proven wrong, invalid, and/or unsound when, and if, you answer my clarifying question here.

We will wait and see.

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.