The correct definition?

[thriller]

I've been pondering this lately, maybe someone can help me out.
I believe that people should apply objective definitions to terms, people, places, ideas etc. By this I mean a whale is a mammal, lives in salt water, and has a blow-hole for breathing air. I also feel that communism and socialism should be defined by the actual ideas that make up communism and socialism, not what other people feel it represents (such as Obama is enacting socialism just because you 'see' it that way). But since language is socially constructed and a democratic practice, does it even matter? The people who speak a certain language define it by speaking certain words (or not speaking words) and choose the definition (such as mouse not having two definitions 40 years ago). Are there objective definitions of ideas? Or since language and ideas are socially constructed, can there be no objective agreement on any idea?
If someone knows of anyone who writes about the philosophy of language I'd appreciate a recommendation. Thanks.

[Luís Henrique]

I've been pondering this lately, maybe someone can help me out.
I believe that people should apply objective definitions to terms, people, places, ideas etc. By this I mean a whale is a mammal, lives in salt water, and has a blow-hole for breathing air. I also feel that communism and socialism should be defined by the actual ideas that make up communism and socialism, not what other people feel it represents (such as Obama is enacting socialism just because you 'see' it that way). But since language is socially constructed and a democratic practice, does it even matter? The people who speak a certain language define it by speaking certain words (or not speaking words) and choose the definition (such as mouse not having two definitions 40 years ago). Are there objective definitions of ideas? Or since language and ideas are socially constructed, can there be no objective agreement on any idea?
If someone knows of anyone who writes about the philosophy of language I'd appreciate a recommendation. Thanks.

For matters such as a whale being a mammal - and not a fish, for instance - get an agreement on what "fish" and "mammal" mean, and then proceed to discuss whether whales fit into one category or the other. If the person has a wrong definition of "mammal", you can refer her to zoology books, dictionaries, biologists, etc., which are usually acceptable authorities in the field.

For matters such as Obama being a socialist, things are more complicated, for people who believe he is such will probably have their own more or less elaborate definiton of "socialism" and will reject the authority of books, dictionaries or college professors that have a definition different from theirs. And because they will probably be able to point to books and college professors that maintain a position similar to theirs (such as, for instance, this crock of intellectual shit (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=hbteczFpo4kC&dq=liberal+fascism&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=8RprT6nYHsiqgwejotCWBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA)). The best thing you can do is say something like, "I am a socialist myself, and I don't think Obama is one of us, for this, that, and further that reason". In other words, the political language isn't merely a social construct, or democratic: it is a battlefield.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah. All that. Language changes for shizzle, but on the other hand it can't change too much or fortescue mogglomobod wobmatiggy.

So, if you're going to try to commnicate with other people, you need a certain set of more-or-less agreed codes. Some of those codes will be contested. But we (as socialists) are in a better position to argue that Obama isn't a socialist than capitalists are to argue that he is.

Unless you're a Social-democrat, in which case, yeah, Obama probably is a socialist. He supports some policies that have been associated wth social-democracy in the past and that is what 'socialist' means to some people.

[The Jay]

I've been pondering this lately, maybe someone can help me out.
I believe that people should apply objective definitions to terms, people, places, ideas etc. By this I mean a whale is a mammal, lives in salt water, and has a blow-hole for breathing air. I also feel that communism and socialism should be defined by the actual ideas that make up communism and socialism, not what other people feel it represents (such as Obama is enacting socialism just because you 'see' it that way). But since language is socially constructed and a democratic practice, does it even matter? The people who speak a certain language define it by speaking certain words (or not speaking words) and choose the definition (such as mouse not having two definitions 40 years ago). Are there objective definitions of ideas? Or since language and ideas are socially constructed, can there be no objective agreement on any idea?
If someone knows of anyone who writes about the philosophy of language I'd appreciate a recommendation. Thanks.

Technically, to ensure against this confusion, all terms and their definitions should be agreed upon before the actual discussion starts. I try to do this as often as possible but not everyone wants to. The reason for this necessity is due to language's subjective, democratic nature, you're correct there.

[Kronsteen]

all terms and their definitions should be agreed upon before the actual discussion starts. I try to do this as often as possible but not everyone wants to.

Your discussions must be extremely long and very dull.

Rather than insist that everyone accept your definitions before they're allowed to start, try communicating in terms you think they'll understand. Then once you've got broad agreement, you can fine tune the definitions between you as you wish.

I try to follow this rule: If I can't explain an idea at least three ways, I don't understand it.

We've all met comrades who can explain themselves very precisely and powerfully...but only in one choice of words, which is usually a selection of quotations from Marx and Lenin. Ask them to paraphrase, and suddenly their eloquence evaporates.

[Dean]

I believe that people should apply objective definitions to terms, people, places, ideas etc. By this I mean a whale is a mammal, lives in salt water, and has a blow-hole for breathing air. I also feel that communism and socialism should be defined by the actual ideas that make up communism and socialism, not what other people feel it represents (such as Obama is enacting socialism just because you 'see' it that way).

You're committing a real error here, and you hint at it in these two sentences. Objectivity and thoughts and ideas are distinct concepts which preclude each other. There is a running question as to whether or not objectivity even exists, or if everything is subjective.

These two poles hint at the bigger theme in all of Western philosophy: ideas versus material reality. "Objectivity" attempts to approximate reality. Ideas are mental concepts, or "forms." The big question is, when do ideas reflect reality? When are ideas, definitions, objective? Wittgenstein points out our big problem here: if something can be expressed in words, it is necessarily not real (material).

Definitions are only useful to refer to shared attitudes or concepts. Specific references to animals are not only rooted in the material world: they are mostly non-controversial. On the other hand, a term like The Country of South Sudan refers to an even more specific landmass and territory, and yet, it is more controversial - its borders are being fought over as we speak (type ;-)).

On socialism, and communism, people have their own concepts of what they are - i.e., the existence of regulation means socialism. You may be surprised if you talk to a lot of conservatives, because many are more opposed to what they view as government redistribution to benefit the wealthy. Even your distinction is not clear cut, since their sloppy definition of communism/socialism inevitably seeps into the left, and self-proclaimed leftists will believe in the same definition.

What needs to happen is a more nuanced discussion on economics and political and moral theory. To be honest, the historical baggage of the terms socialism and communism will make them absent from a lot of discussion that advances leftist goals. But it doesn't stop me from calling myself what I want...

[The Jay]

Your discussions must be extremely long and very dull.

Rather than insist that everyone accept your definitions before they're allowed to start, try communicating in terms you think they'll understand. Then once you've got broad agreement, you can fine tune the definitions between you as you wish.

I try to follow this rule: If I can't explain an idea at least three ways, I don't understand it.

We've all met comrades who can explain themselves very precisely and powerfully...but only in one choice of words, which is usually a selection of quotations from Marx and Lenin. Ask them to paraphrase, and suddenly their eloquence evaporates.

They may be long, but they are not dull and there is not much confusion, as opposed to shifting definitions mid-discussion as you are suggesting. You also made the false assumption that I would impose my definitions on others when I clearly stated that those definitions would be based upon consensus.

I agree with your rule and follow a similar one; I hope that next time you will read what I write more closely to avoid such confusion.

Have a good night.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're committing a real error here, and you hint at it in these two sentences. Objectivity and thoughts and ideas are distinct concepts which preclude each other. There is a running question as to whether or not objectivity even exists, or if everything is subjective.

These two poles hint at the bigger theme in all of Western philosophy: ideas versus material reality. "Objectivity" attempts to approximate reality. Ideas are mental concepts, or "forms." The big question is, when do ideas reflect reality? When are ideas, definitions, objective? Wittgenstein points out our big problem here: if something can be expressed in words, it is necessarily not real (material).

Definitions are only useful to refer to shared attitudes or concepts. Specific references to animals are not only rooted in the material world: they are mostly non-controversial. On the other hand, a term like The Country of South Sudan refers to an even more specific landmass and territory, and yet, it is more controversial - its borders are being fought over as we speak (type ;-)).

On socialism, and communism, people have their own concepts of what they are - i.e., the existence of regulation means socialism. You may be surprised if you talk to a lot of conservatives, because many are more opposed to what they view as government redistribution to benefit the wealthy. Even your distinction is not clear cut, since their sloppy definition of communism/socialism inevitably seeps into the left, and self-proclaimed leftists will believe in the same definition.

What needs to happen is a more nuanced discussion on economics and political and moral theory. To be honest, the historical baggage of the terms socialism and communism will make them absent from a lot of discussion that advances leftist goals. But it doesn't stop me from calling myself what I want...

This ^
Like.. for real.

I'm going out on a limb that objective definitions cannot exist (whether or not objectivity iself does). The best we can hope for is a near universal agreed upon definition.
Even your definition of whale... applies to dolphins too!

Apples don't exist, other than as a term we give to like forms. It is tentative, no matter how much it seems like we can ultimately define apple. You think apples exist and are something different than grapes? What about the grapple (hybrid GE'ed grape and apple)?

[MotherCossack]

omg!
now this is a bizarre choice of thread ... being mother cossack and a tad nonsensical, on occasion... i have found, over time, that i possess a more loosely defined vocabulary than do many others i meet.
no.... it is, perhaps, more than that... i believe that i must possess a more loosely defined grasp of reality than do some others that i have cause to interact with.

it would be nice to easily sort, label and package all manner of things in life. to create and maintain a relative order and harmony in our everyday lives.
to reduce confusion and minimize misunderstandings.
if we could just all pull together to establish a common ground and on it place as many agreed universals, reliable invariables and matters with which we all agree, as possible

trouble is.... life is not like that.... we are not like that.... it would quickly degenerate into bickering and discord.... humans do that ....
we can never have one shared view.... everything in our world is seen uniquely by only ourselves.
we cannot escape our own viewpoint....because we can only be us.....and since everyone is different those ideals of a unifying, single stance are a bit impossible to achieve.

[InTheEnd]

Definitions in politics must always be fluid. Case in point: "Libertarian".

[The Jay]

Definitions in politics must always be fluid. Case in point: "Libertarian".

That's only the case when talking to someone that is ignorant of the actual definitions. That's why I suggest getting the terms sorted out first. It works for me in real life. If the person won't even agree what we're talking about then they probably won't listen to rational argument anyway. If you're talking about merely propaganda then yeah, use buzz words to get effect.