SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (64922)10/30/2002 7:27:41 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
Does this mean that you think that the dictionary is exhaustive?

Since I was involved in this, I'll jump in.

My answer is no, BUT if you go beyond the dictionary definition you need to establish clearly and by agreement what the extended definition is going to be.

The dictionary definition is the default. It is not mandatory law; we can use terms any way we want to, as Lewis Carroll made clear. But if you use a term in a way which is a) not consistent with the dictionary definition and b) not accepted by your interlocuter, then the possibility of agreement on a point becomes quite slim.

IMO, the burden is on the person using a term in an extra-dictionary way to first get agreement on his usage. The only other way I can see this working is for a dialogue to go somewhat like "by the dictionary definition of conscience, so and so, but by my definition of consicence, thus and thus." Which is awkward, but necessary for clarity. IMO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News