Isn't communication w/subjectivism fans hard bec they often ignore the dictionary-defined meaning of words?

Question

Philosophy concepts used by subjectivists often differ from their usual set of meanings because *objective definitions are considered incumbrances or constraints to their "freedom of thought." They do not see little need for reasoning based on an agreed set of defined concepts and fundamental reality axioms like the kind used in mathematics. Your thoughts on this problem?

Since nobody has proposed that word meanings don't evolve, that is raising a strawman or red herring.

This is about communicating about ideas and a group of people who refuse to stick to either the meanings in the dictionary or the meanings as intended in the corpus of philosophy.

Someone has written this self-contradicting statement:

"There is no "subjectivist" philosophy. There are basicly no philosophers of language... or linguistic experts in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries whom believe language is objective."

Assuming you meant something non-contradictory, like there are no Objective philsophers:

Here is a counter example: Ayn Rand who wrote this book: "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" I am currently reading and studying the monograph based on aother participant's recommendation and many would do well to study it. Many other philosopher's believe objectivity based on reason is possible, but sujectivity which is an element of human nature is a hurdle to knowing the truth. Did I forget to mention that Plato and Aristotle were objectivist.

BTW : *Subjectivism is a defined term in philosophy as is the term, *Objectivism. To say otherwise is taking ignorance(def'n=lack of knowledge) to another extreme.

Subjectivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •Jump to: navigation, search
Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In an extreme form, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends soley on someone's subjective awareness of it. For example, Wittgenstein wrote in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "The subject doesn't belong to the world, but it is a limit of the world" (proposition 5.632). One may also consider the qualified empiricism of George Berkeley in this context, given his reliance on God as the prime mover of human perception.

[edit] Metaphysical subjectivism
Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that perception is reality, and that there is no underlying, true reality that exists independent of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality. This is in contrast to metaphysical objectivism, which asserts that there is an underlying 'objective' reality which is perceived in different ways.

This holding should not be confused with the stance that "all is illusion" or that "there is no such thing as reality." Metaphysical subjectivists hold that reality is real enough. They conceive, however, that the nature of reality as related to a given consciousness unit is dependent on that consciousness. This has its philosophical basis in the writings of Descartes (see Cogito Ergo Sum),

"not every one uses your logical and definitional system" Its not my definitions! To say so is to totally misrepresent my Q and is borderline ad hominem

If you ignore the substantive issues in the Q-asked-the variability of word meanings and the attendant communication problems of subjectivism, you are not able or interested in doing real philosophy. Many repeat your ideas and many don't even bother to explain and rationally justify them.

Many should stick to Q's like:"How many toes does a spider monkey have?"(toes? well I think toes are this .....)LoL

Your possible solution is a good one. But Q&A format makes it difficult to do. Sharply focused Q's and A's that address the focal idea or issue is the next best thing. Posing your own Q's will make this point clear to you.

Use of dictionaries and glossaries (esp in philosophy) to make better word choices and understand their sense is an aid not a hindrance. It is anti-intellectual to argue against remedies for word ignorance and incorrect usage of condensed concepts.

side note: I figured out that I2OE means "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." Such an abbreviation is a bit too extreme and only should be used between frequent communicants.

Answer 1

You're right, in the superficial sense. In debates, the discussion often times gets diverted to the topic of semantics.

It is on the philosophical level, however....where the meaning of words is determined. This is where we go beyond simply "words" as we enter the realm of lexicon. Hobbes redefined the word SOVEREIGN, allowing Locke to eventually end its grip on our minds.

You can also, however, see slight modifications in word meaning on the superficial level, like our understanding of the word "environment." Although it's almost amusing how transitory the meaning "de jour" is perceived in the dynamic context of our lexicon. Obviously this word is not being pulled into a particular concretized system of meaning by a significant philosophical system. One need only "picture" in the mind's eye the word "ENVIRONMENT" then the word "SOVEREIGN" to see this obvious difference.

I must say, in continuing, that Rand in I2OE misses a chance to better define some terminology that would strengthen her case. Two words that come to mind are consciousness and awareness.

If you're a young man, there may be an opportunity there for you someday...

Answer 2

Its not so much that a dictionary impedes a thought process. So much as language is not a stationary thing. One need only look at the word cool to understand this.

So, moving on, subjectivism is not an ism, it's, ironically, not even a word. There is no "subjectivist" philosophy. There are basicly no philosophers of language... or linguistic experts in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries whom believe language is objective.

Linguistic philosophy is quite interesting. Read Wittgenstein, he wanted to make language based on definition using mathematical formal logic but he came around to see it was impossible as language is not math. Quine agrees. Chomsky does too. As do basically all philosophers of mind.

So, basically, I see that you are frustrated that not every one uses your logical and definitional system, but I think if you look at your own every day speech you will see you do not either.

Finally, If reality worked based on the fundamental axion of math, wouldn't there be a unified theory for heavenly bodies, objects our size and atoms? If the physics of the universe is not accounted for by math what makes you think it is even possible for human interaction to be?

Answer 3

(IMO)
In response to a kindly worded email I will attempt to structure this answer slightly better then the last one.

Of Language:
The biggest problem is that dictionary definitions use words to describe more words. A number can stand alone in concept, a word requires people to give it meaning and a conceptual framework to exist in. Language is just a cohering network of inter-related symbols, formulated with the aim of getting what is in one persons head to anothers via the most convenient and expediant sets of commonly held/agreed on meanings. Language itself, with the exception of nouns (and even this a subjectivist can dispute), is given meaning by its links with itself. It is an entirely self contained network. Explain what a conscience is without using words.....Explain what a word is without using words.....As wonderful as it is, truly defining words/language can be compared to trying to open the box with the crowbar inside it. The same analogy can be applied to attempts to refute subjectivism using empirical evidence.

Backup/Evidence/Messy Idea...:
It should be noted that no two people have exactly the same linguistic mental associations. We learn language primarily through exposure, and no two of us have the same experiences and conversations, and thus no two have prescisely the same meanings. The word hyperbole, or hypocrite, or bodacious, will have a different meaning to me then to others, as I have heard them used in different situations and no doubt will use them in different situations myself.

Conclusion:
Point being that even before we start talking about subjectivism language itself gets in our way. Wittgenstein claimed that although useful in everyday life, language in Philosophy becomes as ice, frictionless and in the end able to achieve very little. Language in real life is dependent on context, related to other words, paralinguistics and the physical word itself to give it meaning. To a subjectivist, who disputes the interactive and contextual basis for the vast majority of meaning in language, having a perfectly clearly defined set of words is next to impossible, outside of their OWN definitions. Which defeats the point.

Applying Language to Philosophy:
In philosophy there is no context, other then the word themselves, and so to communicate and determine with meaning requires a little more then dictionary definition. This may seem extremely difficult, but perhaps the answer is to look for the basest common denominators of meaning within the lexus, and to work with logical propositions from therein. The field of formal logic, founded, bless his heart, by Aristotle is one such attempt to do this via taking the [Inter-relationship-of-proposition] words, such as if, therefore, then, thus and using their definite meanings mathematically. Of course since then others have disputed even this, on the grounds that it is still dependent on an individual interpretation of meaning.

Possible Solution:
Given all of the above it would seem that the only way you can have meaningful philosophical discourse with a pure subjectivist is to set out a clearly "defined" set of premises, build up your proof/theory from them using pure logic, and to them demonstrate as many different interpretations of the premises whilst retaining the mathematical and logical integrity of the proof as a whole and its ensuing conclusions. This way you can arrive at a philosophy which is mathematically/logically/linguistically derivable from as many different views as possible, so should the subjectivist subscribe to any of these views he is obliged to accept the naturally following conclusion.
This is what I term the shotgun approach. Hit every meaning, premise and interpretation as hard as possible, and try to show that all roads lead to your damn Rome.
Hope that made some sense :)

Edit: Looking at the original question, it should be noted that regarding language and dictionary definitions as too liquid/vague/changeable is not the same thing as calling them an encroachment upon intellectual freedom, any more then saying that because bits of the ocean change and move we can't navigate.

Answer 4

I suppose that these definitions of which you speak were created by totally objective and unemotional computers which were created by the great god Mechanica who resides in the heavenly realm of Pi.

I myself have no problem with defined terms. I think they provide a common ground of understanding for discussions. However I don't think that we can allow ourselves to become married to these terms to the extent that we stop questioning their integrity. Philosophy, like other disciplines, is a livng entity. It grows and evolves. To remain static and anchored to the edicts of the present, is to condemn ourselves to stagnation and decay.

Answer 5

Philosophers have the right to coin new words, as they keep experimenting with new concepts. They always spell out what they mean by each new expression, and concept, as well as they also make distinctions.

Philosophy can not go on without this, as it is always new.