Jump to content
InfestedKerrigan

Random Thought Thread

Recommended Posts

On May 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Raindog said:

You are not free.

You never were free.

You never will be free. 

Conclusions like this make me wonder if I'm using a word wrong, or more so, if the definition needs a re-write. Being free should be obtainable, so if the concept is unobtainable as you've defined it, I suggest re-writing the definition of being free so people can be free in your eyes.

Trust is like this too. I had to redefine trust to use it. The way others describe it doesn't seem to be something my paranoid mind believes is real, so I had to adjust it to fit my reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Conclusions like this make me wonder if I'm using a word wrong, or more so, if the definition needs a re-write. Being free should be obtainable, so if the concept is unobtainable as you've defined it, I suggest re-writing the definition of being free so people can be free in your eyes.

Trust is like this too. I had to redefine trust to use it. The way others describe it doesn't seem to be something my paranoid mind believes is real, so I had to adjust it to fit my reality.

I'm not sure redefining words for yourself without publishing a dictionary of your own is quite kosher.  If you say you trust me I already have an implicit understanding of what that means.  The fact that you think trust as it is really defined is impossible doesn't really matter when it comes to expressing yourself to another human being.  That shared definition is what makes communication possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duckman said:

I'm not sure redefining words for yourself without publishing a dictionary of your own is quite kosher.  If you say you trust me I already have an implicit understanding of what that means.  The fact that you thinks trust as it is really defined is impossible doesn't really matter when it comes to expressing yourself to another human being.  That shard definition is what makes communication possible.

Disagree on both counts.

First, a personal understanding of the world as it relates to yourself is normal. It's context and perspective. Your ideal of happieness is probably defined differently than mine - that sort of thing is normal. If the way others use a word doesn't work for you, change it for yourself. That's how the language evolves.

Second, the dictionary is specifically designed to define the way words are used contextually in our written language (and specifically our published, written language). It has less bearing on the spoken language, and isn't intended to replace people's use of context to discern meaning. And the dictionary isn't creating the words or the definitions, it's explaining what they mean based on how others use them. Be the others, use them your own way, and maybe you'll even contribute to a future dictionary.

Seems rather ignorant (and potentially arrogant) to assume that everyone will define words in the same way at you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, paxmiles said:

First, a personal understanding of the world as it relates to yourself is normal. It's context and perspective. Your ideal of happieness is probably defined differently than mine - that sort of thing is normal. If the way others use a word doesn't work for you, change it for yourself. That's how the language evolves.

Second, the dictionary is specifically designed to define the way words are used contextually in our written language (and specifically our published, written language). It has less bearing on the spoken language, and isn't intended to replace people's use of context to discern meaning. And the dictionary isn't creating the words or the definitions, it's explaining what they mean based on how others use them. Be the others, use them your own way, and maybe you'll even contribute to a future dictionary.

Seems rather ignorant (and potentially arrogant) to assume that everyone will define words in the same way at you. 

Actually, we all define almost every word the same way and as Kerrigan said, that is part of the social contract.

You may not feel happy or you may be happy for different reasons, but happy is still "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment".  You're not going to say you are happy when you are in fact uncomfortable.  Why you are happy or relating to what specific aspect, item or event is context, as you say, but it does not change the meaning of the word happy.  Maybe you are a masochist and derive pleasure from pain...  That does not change the meaning of either word.  It simply establishes context for yourself.

One will always be one. Blue will always be blue.  Free does not mean "Here's your free burrito, that'll be $1.50."

Context may imply boundaries or conditions as it does in the quote that Raindog posted which began this discussion.  That doesn't mean I am redefining the word free, however.  It means that I am judging the context and deciding whether or not the sentence applies to me.  Even with the touchy-feely words like love, trust, etc. the meaning of the word is largely unchanging and what changes is the way people evaluate the context and apply the word.  I love my wife, my dogs and a really good plate of nachos, all in different ways.

Words which get redefined are still a part of a social contract.  It's not one person redefining a word for themselves.  It's a group of people choosing to use a word to mean something within the group (a social contract) and that definition being adopted over time more broadly...  Gay, nigga, groovy, bodacious, heavy, etc.  They are all changed by a group using the word consistently and that social contract being passed along to others.

The idea that using the existing set of social contracts is arrogant is absurd.  The idea that a single person can dictate the social contract for everyone is what is arrogant (which is not to say that in this era of TV personality it doesn't happen, but...).  Interpret something for yourself, fine.  But if you choose to redefine a word and then have to explain what you mean when you say it using other words then you have, by definition, failed to communicate and therefore have misused the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2018 at 1:05 PM, InfestedKerrigan said:

To be honest, this sort of discourse is part of the intent of the thread, not just "one liners," as it were. ^_^

This "discourse" is on the topic of philosophy. I don't subscribe to your philosophy of social contracts. I'm realizing that I could go on for quite some time with this topic, but it's not the topic that this thread is, nor is it a Warpspace topic. And even there [in RoC], we could go on for quite some time, but ultimately, it's a disagreement of philosophy which is up to the individual to agree or disagree upon, and is unlikely to be influenced by discussion. So, come to RoC, I welcome you. Start a new topic there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×