On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:48:54 -0500, Phobos wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:26:17 -0500, monkfish wrote (in message
> <lcOdnS98vdgkuojVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> Language does not work that way.
>> We will never be able to communicate, if we have to wait until there
>> can be no question about what each word means.
>
> Then if we do not agree on the definition of a word or phrase, we could
> end up talking about different things and not understanding what the
> other means.
>
> Why don't you define it as you mean it now and then when you change it,
> can then use the new one remembering how it was defined before.
>
> If that is not what you want to do, then when you are ready post it and
> we can proceed from there.
I have been defining it through examples.
To think that we need to agree on
the definitions of all the words used
is a good example of flat reasoning.
Because you have flatten the multiple perspectives
involved in defining a term,
you failed to realize that the defining terms
need to be defined as well.
You also completely forgot about
the "speech act" nature of language.
I can go on with several more perspectives
"flattened" by you without even realizing it.
But, now is not the time to do philosophy of language.
We will get to that after we agree
to talk about God in a more civilized manner.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
|
