Welcome to Gaia! ::

vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
Eltiana
vwytche
By that logic any indivdual may define any word any way they see fit. And while we do have the right to set our own standards of thought, this would not lead to very effective communication.
The definition of evil remains the same. The only thing that changes is how a person reads that definition and applies it to his/her reality.


But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
Eltiana's avatar

Enduring Regular

vwytche
But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
My point is, they could both be using the same exact definition but have come to different conclusions using that definition. A definition dictates what something is in reality, but reality itself can be very different for each individual person.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
Eltiana
vwytche
But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
My point is, they could both be using the same exact definition but have come to different conclusions using that definition. A definition dictates what something is in reality, but reality itself can be very different for each individual person.


Exactly, this is why abstracts can not be defined beyond the broadest terms. The are ideas, and ideas are not reality, they are versions of how reality is percieved that exsist only in the minds of those who hold them.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Eltiana
vwytche
But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
My point is, they could both be using the same exact definition but have come to different conclusions using that definition. A definition dictates what something is in reality, but reality itself can be very different for each individual person.


I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.

vwytche
Brandan J Cromartie
vwytche
I doubt very much you do. You don't seem to see how you are contradicting yourself all over the place. I don't see how you could begin to hope to predict the actions of another.


In a sense of irony that's what I knew was coming. It takes hours to break this particular issue down though so I'll just concede. It isn't very fun unless people are already on a specific level and just by talking about Venus de Milo and eroticism we're too far back.

I lose. You're right. Let's go about our days. etc.


Same place tomorrow?
No. Not this topic. I actually enjoy discussing it and give it real thought. We'll discuss something meaningless later.
Eltiana's avatar

Enduring Regular

stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet to you?
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet (to you?)


Does pluto disappear when you're not looking at it?

EDIT: Also, ask an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Eltiana's avatar

Enduring Regular

stealthmongoose
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet (to you?)


Does pluto disappear when you're not looking at it?

EDIT: Also, ask an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Pluto itself exists regardless of what it's defined as. What it exists AS is entirely based around what it's defined as.Thus my statement still stands, 'definitions dictate what something is in reality". Definitions once dictated that Pluto was a planet. The definition of what a planet is has changed, which now dictates that in Pluto is no longer a planet.
Eltiana's avatar

Enduring Regular

vwytche
Exactly, this is why abstracts can not be defined beyond the broadest terms. The are ideas, and ideas are not reality, they are versions of how reality is percieved that exsist only in the minds of those who hold them.
To each individual person they are real though.What is real for one person may not be for another.
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet (to you?)


Does pluto disappear when you're not looking at it?

EDIT: Also, ask an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Pluto itself exists regardless of what it's defined as. What it exists AS is entirely based around what it's defined as.Thus my statement still stands, 'definitions dictate what something is in reality". Definitions once dictated that Pluto was a planet. The definition of what a planet is has changed, which now dictates that in Pluto is no longer a planet.


You have proven yourself wrong. Pluto exists as a hunk of rock in space. What we call it does not make it any more or less a hunk of rock in space. How we classify it does not make it any more or less than a hunk of rock in space. We can say that Pluto is now a rabbit. Does that mean Pluto exists as a rabbit? No. Does that mean that rabbits here on Earth now share qualities with Pluto? No. The very basis of what you are saying defeats itself by proving that observations are subjective to the observing body which in turn means that reality is not dictated at all by what an observer decides whether that be a definition or a description.

vwytche
Eltiana
vwytche
But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
My point is, they could both be using the same exact definition but have come to different conclusions using that definition. A definition dictates what something is in reality, but reality itself can be very different for each individual person.


Exactly, this is why abstracts can not be defined beyond the broadest terms. The are ideas, and ideas are not reality, they are versions of how reality is percieved that exsist only in the minds of those who hold them.
This is nonsense too. There is only one version of reality in any given school of thought and ideas are not what create that reality but rather the realities and their elements are all based on concepts that cannot be concrete. As a matter of fact it is the lack of knowledge, not knowledge held, that makes for the propositions with things such as Solipsism feeding on the fact that you cannot prove this and Empiricism on the fact that you cannot prove that. This would be the world outside of you and That would be the world beyond you in these cases.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet (to you?)


Does pluto disappear when you're not looking at it?

EDIT: Also, ask an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Pluto itself exists regardless of what it's defined as. What it exists AS is entirely based around what it's defined as.Thus my statement still stands, 'definitions dictate what something is in reality". Definitions once dictated that Pluto was a planet. The definition of what a planet is has changed, which now dictates that in Pluto is no longer a planet.


But you are equating our perception to exsistance, as if Pluto some how change rather than our rules.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
Eltiana
vwytche
Exactly, this is why abstracts can not be defined beyond the broadest terms. The are ideas, and ideas are not reality, they are versions of how reality is percieved that exsist only in the minds of those who hold them.
To each individual person they are real though.What is real for one person may not be for another.


I'm not taking about what is real. I'm talking about what is definable.
Eltiana's avatar

Enduring Regular

Brandan J Cromartie
You have proven yourself wrong. Pluto exists as a hunk of rock in space. What we call it does not make it any more or less a hunk of rock in space. How we classify it does not make it any more or less than a hunk of rock in space. We can say that Pluto is now a rabbit. Does that mean Pluto exists as a rabbit? No. Does that mean that rabbits here on Earth now share qualities with Pluto? No. The very basis of what you are saying defeats itself by proving that observations are subjective to the observing body which in turn means that reality is not dictated at all by what an observer decides whether that be a definition or a description.
All I'm saying is what we call it affects what we call it. If we change the definition of what a rabbit is to something that would include Pluto, then yes Pluto is a rabbit. That doesn't mean it's a furry mammal with long ears. I never said definitions dictate what reality is, I said definitions dictate what something is in reality. Two different things
Eltiana
Brandan J Cromartie
You have proven yourself wrong. Pluto exists as a hunk of rock in space. What we call it does not make it any more or less a hunk of rock in space. How we classify it does not make it any more or less than a hunk of rock in space. We can say that Pluto is now a rabbit. Does that mean Pluto exists as a rabbit? No. Does that mean that rabbits here on Earth now share qualities with Pluto? No. The very basis of what you are saying defeats itself by proving that observations are subjective to the observing body which in turn means that reality is not dictated at all by what an observer decides whether that be a definition or a description.
All I'm saying is what we call it affects what we call it. If we change the definition of what a rabbit is to something that would include Pluto, then yes Pluto is a rabbit. That doesn't mean it's a furry mammal with long ears. I never said definitions dictate what reality is, I said definitions dictate what something is in reality. Two different things
What you're saying and what you're meaning to say aren't equivalent.

Truth is what is.

Reality is what we find.

Definitions are descriptions or categories for how we live. Definitions do not dictate what something is but rather dictate how we react to it.

A good example is killing under the law:

Murder is purposeful and direct. Negligence is purposeful and indirect. Manslaughter is not necessarily purposeful but direct. Then the fourth which I forget the name of would be indirect and accidental.

No matter how you define it it's killing. So the Truth is that someone dies. The Reality is the motive we find. The Definition fits to match the Truth then the Perceptions and our Findings.
vwytche's avatar

Ruthless Survivor

9,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250
  • Dressed Up 200
Brandan J Cromartie
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
Eltiana
stealthmongoose
I have to disagree on the principle of language being a higher reality than reality itself.

In the event when one's definition of a term fails, the reality does not change. One's beliefs may change, and through actions (real) shape reality.

If I change the name of a Quarter (money) and definition to that of a Rose (Plant/Flower) will a person be able to pick a "Rose" from a nearby bush and buy a soda with it? Will quarters in the universe suddenly sprout leaves, thorns, buds, and give off a sweet scent whenever pulled from someone's wallet?

I assert that definitions and terms fall before reality.
Is Pluto a planet (to you?)


Does pluto disappear when you're not looking at it?

EDIT: Also, ask an astronomer or astrophysicist.
Pluto itself exists regardless of what it's defined as. What it exists AS is entirely based around what it's defined as.Thus my statement still stands, 'definitions dictate what something is in reality". Definitions once dictated that Pluto was a planet. The definition of what a planet is has changed, which now dictates that in Pluto is no longer a planet.


You have proven yourself wrong. Pluto exists as a hunk of rock in space. What we call it does not make it any more or less a hunk of rock in space. How we classify it does not make it any more or less than a hunk of rock in space. We can say that Pluto is now a rabbit. Does that mean Pluto exists as a rabbit? No. Does that mean that rabbits here on Earth now share qualities with Pluto? No. The very basis of what you are saying defeats itself by proving that observations are subjective to the observing body which in turn means that reality is not dictated at all by what an observer decides whether that be a definition or a description.

vwytche
Eltiana
vwytche
But in the example neither individual gives a definition, only an example. So we have no idea what their defintions of evil are, and can therefore not compare them to assess a common understanding of the word necessary for clear communication of the concept.
My point is, they could both be using the same exact definition but have come to different conclusions using that definition. A definition dictates what something is in reality, but reality itself can be very different for each individual person.


Exactly, this is why abstracts can not be defined beyond the broadest terms. The are ideas, and ideas are not reality, they are versions of how reality is percieved that exsist only in the minds of those who hold them.
This is nonsense too. There is only one version of reality in any given school of thought and ideas are not what create that reality but rather the realities and their elements are all based on concepts that cannot be concrete. As a matter of fact it is the lack of knowledge, not knowledge held, that makes for the propositions with things such as Solipsism feeding on the fact that you cannot prove this and Empiricism on the fact that you cannot prove that. This would be the world outside of you and That would be the world beyond you in these cases.


When did I say ideas create reality? I clearly said that ideas are not reality. They are perecptions. How something is percieved changes it not at all. Was it not arrogant enough of man to proclaim the world to be as we see it? Must we also mandate it be as we choose to define it?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games