Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6548)	6/23/2003 11:54:05 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I apparently temporarily forgot the wisdom gained from earlier discussions, that is, to bail just as soon as the discussion turns to the meaning of words. Gee. That means you can never read Plato, because virtually all of Plato is about the meaning of words. My insight is a bit different from yours. My insight is that a large number of the disagreements humans have are over using different meanings of the same words. And that if one really wants to reach understanding of ideas, one first must reach understanding of the words used to describe those ideas. After all, for example, when some people in our country call others traitors for certain political beliefs, the issue usually is less what they have said or done than the definition of treason. If you refused to deal with that issue, all you get is discussion on the level of "you're a traitor" "no I'm not" on and on endlessly. I learned back in my high school debate team days the principle that if you let the other side define the terms without challenge, you lose the argument. And if you can get away with defining the terms without challenge, you win the argument. But debate is about winning and losing, not about trying to understand. In the trying to understand, and maybe reach agreement, arena discussion of and agreement on definitions of terms is critical. If you aren't willing to do that, there is no hope of reaching agreement on the hard issues.