Words Mean Things.

If you've talked to me on any topic of any depth for more than ten minutes, I can almost guarantee you've heard me shouting "Words mean things." I get irate often with conversations that warp the meaning of words to suit whatever their speaker intends (however far from the true meaning that may be), or when people want to debate without defining terms. I often push for us to have common definitions ("Okay, let's set out what we mean by 'The Force' in the context of this conversation."), or to stick with the definitions we already have ("That's not what 'religion' means, so your point is called into question.") because it is very important to me that we communicate on a level on which we are guaranteed to be understood. At least, linguistically.

When I say "Words mean things", what I mean is that every word in the English language has it's own meaning. If two words meant exactly the same thing, then there would be no reason for the other one to exist, right? Yes, some have meanings close enough to other words that we call them "synonyms", but even those don't really mean the same thing--they just mean approximately the same thing, a degree of certainty that is good enough for most conversations.

A lot of what happens in certain parts of this forum, though, aren't "most conversations." There are tons of scientific, philosophical, religious, spiritual, academic, ethical, or scholarly discussions going on at TOTJO at any given moment. That's partly because people have questions, and partly because people think they have answers. It's also partly because we like to hear ourselves talk, and we're a generally smart bunch that knows you can learn more from a good debate than you can if everyone always agrees.

What I'm ultimately getting to is that the next time you hear me say "words mean things," maybe take a moment and remember this post, because what I'm ultimately trying to say is "we can't all understand each other unless we're coming from a common frame of reference in regards to vocabulary."

To borrow from the Analects :

Kong Qiu wrote: If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately.
What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Your right words do have certain meanings and in written format should have the same meaning to everyone. But words mean different things to different people because of what we put onto the words.. The word 'force' means something to everyone, a general meaning and a more personal meaning.
When you have a conversation, fixating on words is meaningless, you have to take the whole sentence to understand and even then, living in different cultures and different countries some words mean different things.
Word's mean many thing... But words by themselves mean nothing. LOL
:laugh: :whistle:

Agreeing on definition before getting upset WILL make a conversation go a little smoother...

But, seldom do we do that... :lol:...

It seems that while we circle the topic, trying to find the definition, often times some of us get frustrated because we are all not immediately on the same definition...

You and me, for example, growing the way we have, may have to discuss a topic for a while before we come to an agreement on what a definition is, because as we try to define a object, we are using other words that also may vary from area to area, and person to person...

What is "wonderful"? Is it better than "spectacular"? Better (or worse) than any other word?

You are not wrong in wanting a common definition, but, you are beating your head on the wall to think it will happen, lol...

As soon as you and I agree on something, Elizabeth will join in the conversation, and she and you will go around...

It will be a constant, frustrating battle you are fighting, and you can get frustrated that we dont all jump to your way of thinking, or, you can accept that this is how things are, they are not as you would like... lol...

Not that you should stop trying, if it is that important to you, but, just remember that people are people...

We have all these synonyms because while people are talking, and they say, "isnt it wonderful?" someone will say, "No, it was spectacular"... In the end, both people enjoyed it, but the "wonderful" person would say, "It wasnt that good. Did you think it was?" and then the conversation of circling the definition begins...

So, Im glad you spoke your piece, and always encourage it, but I also ask you to not get too frustrated...

being fixated on a strict definition of something is a form of attachment, I most notably have had this in past discussions about faith and science. I've had to learn to let go of that.

There is no strict meaning of words, you have to take into account not only context but metaphorical interpretation too.

Where do you think phrases like 'Look but did not see' and 'Heard but did not listen' come from? If we employ a strict meaning to those words then those phrases seem utterly meaningless.

Why do you have a herd of cows but a pack of dogs? Rather than a pack of cows and a herd of dogs? A strict definition of both means 'group of animals', but another strict definition of both means 'herd=group of cattle', 'pack=group that run and hunt together'.

Which strict definition should you use? If you choose one and refuse the rest then you are becoming attached to that definition and it restricts your use of language.

But the reverse is true also, if you use the word 'pack' to mean 'gamma radiation' then things will get pretty confusing...

But how often d things like that happen? Such utterly and completely different definitions rather than a different metaphorical interpretation?

So we are left with a choice, either we obey strict rules for words (which someone or pack of humans will have to agree on) or we take the time to clarify our language with explanations of potentially confusing terms.

Which one of those is the more valuable and, I would argue, 'Jedi' way of doing things?

Akkarin wrote: being fixated on a strict definition of something is a form of attachment, I most notably have had this in past discussions about faith and science. I've had to learn to let go of that.

Attachment is not inherently bad. It is excessive attachment that is the problem. Everything in moderation.

Akkarin wrote: Where do you think phrases like 'Look but did not see' and 'Heard but did not listen' come from? If we employ a strict meaning to those words then those phrases seem utterly meaningless.

steamboat28 wrote: When I say "Words mean things", what I mean is that every word in the English language has it's own meaning. If two words meant exactly the same thing, then there would be no reason for the other one to exist, right?

Those phrases still have meaning because "look" and "see" do not mean the same thing. Neither do "hear" and "listen."

Akkarin wrote: So we are left with a choice, either we obey strict rules for words (which someone or pack of humans will have to agree on) or we take the time to clarify our language with explanations of potentially confusing terms.

You're missing the other option stated above. Definitions can change (they often do), and my point was never to suggest otherwise. What I do suggest, however, is that definitions be clarified before discussing heavy matters, so that people will know what your words mean in the context of the discussion.

For example, if I say that "to me, religion is purely based on faith and not morality, because moral structures can exist by themselves without being considered religious," then you know that my definition of "religion" for the remainder of that particular conversation excludes moral codes as a defining characteristic. We won't have to spend the next few hours (or pages) arguing over whether or not I think a certain thing is a religion, because I've cleared it up in a single sentence prior. It's rather simple, mostly painless, and it could advance discussions by cutting through all the b.s. of people having to repeat themselves 90 times before someone finally listens to them.

Akkarin wrote: Which one of those is the more valuable and, I would argue, 'Jedi' way of doing things?

One might argue that, currently, the most "Jedi" way of doing things is to talk in circles and never understand anyone you're discussing with, because none of you have a frame of reference for the other people involved. But one might also argue that to bring up that particular bit of honesty might be considered a smart*** move. :whistle:

steamboat28 wrote:
What I'm ultimately getting to is that the next time you hear me say "words mean things," maybe take a moment and remember this post, because what I'm ultimately trying to say is "we can't all understand each other unless we're coming from a common frame of reference in regards to vocabulary."

You ask to much.

Maybe it's best to just be silent. :side:

scott777ab wrote: You ask to much.

I don't think you ask enough.

What's the point in talking if you aren't going to be understood?

I think it's great to dictate term's as part of a functional effort. I grew up with rigid and strict communication because I focused on trying to become a pilot.



So communication can be functional, and in that circumstance it could be best to have agreed upon definitions but communication is also an opportunity to explore and create outside of rigid controls.

I guess communication is not only a process, but a connection between people. One one hand as a communication it's defined by its purpose and time restraints to that end, but as a connection it becomes not about the discussion but the interaction....? I guess then we also have the situation where different people might be participating in a discussion for different reasons too
:lol:
ohmy, as long as we're having a good time, because we are all different :side:

steamboat28 wrote:

scott777ab wrote: You ask to much.

I don't think you ask enough.

What's the point in talking if you aren't going to be understood?

Some people love to talk just to talk regardless of whether or not they are understood.