Dictionary logic?

Question

Sudden thought: Imagine a dictionary containing all the words in a language. Whatever the word we want do define in that language, we need other words (of the same language) to define it, right? For example, if the definition of "chair" is "object used to seat on", and if I didn't know what that means, I would have to go search for the meanings of "object", "used", "to", "seat" and "on" (on the same dictionary). Doesn't this result ultimately in some kind of logic absurdity, when we will be defining words in a loop, ending up trying to explain words with words we are trying to define? Would we need to have self-defining or self-explanatory words? What do you think?

Answer 1

A dictionary can't teach the true structure of the language. It the sentence is "go sit on the chair" then you need to know the structure of the language. Consider, if you see a sentence, The Latterstill was modering by the flaff. You should inherently know that you need to know what a Latterstill is, what modering is an action that needs to be explained, and what is the object Flaff. You have to know The and by the and was have to be known, or else you cannot understand the sentence no matter how many defined words you use.

Answer 2

There is no logic involved.
All words must be defined.
In order to do so, words must be used to define a word that are understood or defined elsewhere.
By using the method you described, a diligent person could learn the entire dictionary.
Samuel Johnson had a vocabulary of more than 100,000 words. Or course, he WROTE the dictionary.
By the way, a chair has a seat, but you sit on it.

Answer 3

It is not an absurdity. For the practical world, the makers of the dictionary have to assume the reader understands some minimal vocabulary.

The philosophical answer is slightly different. A concept is a mental definition. All philosophers agree that some concepts are defined in terms of others concepts. That said, your question is a variation of what is called the problem of universals, and such has been subject to debate for centuries. You may want to read about epistemology for an elaboration of your question.

Answer 4

Yes, dictionaries are "loopy." But more objective words can be defined by pointing to the thing they symbolize.

It's experience in common that makes all communication via words possible, because the meaning of everything (from the most spiritual to the most material) is not in the words but in the consciousness of the listener or reader.

People tend to listen and respond as if words have more or less fixed meanings. But words don't have fixed ordained meanings. They mean what we, the community of word users, agree they mean--and we often disagree and change our minds. Word meanings are in motion like the fluid consciousness that gives them birth, and dictionaries are the fluent history of our collective verbal habits.

Dictionaries are not meaning bibles but an ephemeral record of how we have used words. Words are a catalyst for consciousness--there is no meaning in the words themselves. Or we might say words have shadow meanings that follow the actual meaning that exists in the life of consciousness. Words are symbols, forms, obscure mysteries---they are in the world of dead things and only take on meaning in a moment of illumination in the mind and heart of the reader or speaker.

"And these… these phrases you keep speaking in. They don't make any sense."
"Ah, you seek meaning?"
"Yes."
"Then listen to the music, not the song."
—From the Babylon 5 series: "Winters in Babylon 5”

Answer 5

not really, because if you had to define every word in that sentence, then every word in the next, and so on, sooner or later you will have defined all the words needed. even if it takes months to read it all.

Answer 6

i think that if you have to look up "chair" or "object" or "on" in the dictionary, you have worse problems