I think Webster's definition of "philosophy" might be leaving some
things out, such as all of human thought. I also think the meaning of
"God" might actually have a little more to it than Webster lets on.
But these are just smart-ass examples. I suppose I might offer a bit
more substance.
The dictionary is purported to be a convention utilized to facilitate,
and standardize communication. A multi-lingual dictionary allows us to
translate words back and forth between languages, further facilitating
communication between linguistic groups. Sure, you can look up the word
"life", but I bet that it won't put you all that much closer to knowing
the meaning of life.
The dictionary is curious insofar as it defines words using words. These
definitional words need to be defined as well. So on and so forth until
by some magical process, all the words in the dictionary are defined
using words in the dictionary. If it weren't for synonyms, I wonder if
the dictionary would even be possible. I mean take the verb "to be" for
instance. Most would define this to mean "exist" or "occur". But
clearly, that which does not exist and does not occur, can still "be" in
some sense because we can talk about it.
Very recently (in an entirely different context) I was challenged to
come up with the smallest number of words that could define each other.
I came up with three verbs, and they are all synonymous in some way with
"is".
is equals matches
matches is equals
equals matches is
This assumes that a definition takes the form of A=B. But interestingly,
when we say A=B, B suddenly becomes A, and then A=A. A definition
purports to equate two words such that the two are really just
expressions of the same meaning.
For some reason though, not all A equals B. We don't ever say "a dog is
a cat" do we? Why can't a dog be a cat if we define them that way? For
that matter, why do we think the statement "a dog is a dog" is any
better? Or do we? What about "Rover is a dog?" That seems correct in
some sense.
And how do we really know that 1 = 1? Doesn't 1 = 9/9, too? Well
obviously we define 1 to be equal to 9/9. So then 1 can be equal to all
sorts of things, but only because we define it that way.
The problem as I see it in this discussion of meaning (which I have been
following with some interest), is how meanings are created, and either
validated or invalidated. Only after deciding how a definition is deemed
to be correct or "certain" can one argue about the validity of any
particular definitions.
In testing definitions, logic seems like a pretty good place to start.
(But what is the definition of logic?)
Boat drinks,
______________________________________________________________________
Hagbard Celine
>87
mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com
PGP Public Key at http://pw1.netcom.com/~hagbard/Homepage.htm
PGP 5.5 Fingerprint EAE3 DD4A 8A64 0099 DAC0 0A8B 472E 69DF 54A8 F34B