Robin, by “the commonly accepted dictionary definition of the word” I mean what most of us here mean when we talk to each other in non-theoretical conversation. For everyday communication to make sense, we have to assume that the language we use in everyday conversation is reliable. As I said before, words are problematical in a theoretical sense, but to be able to understand each other here we have to assume they are not problematical and accept them at face value. Otherwise all communication here would be impossible. To have to point this out to you might make you sound obtuse. But it had to be done.
For you to argue with this is odd—if it it is a sincere argument, that is, and not merely a debating tactic to make the discussion focus on me instead of the arguments Tim and myself (sadly no others) have put forward.
By the way, why don’t use quote marks all the time when are quoting me, and in some cases use * instead. It’s all very irregular and somewhat confusing. I hope that isn’t your intention. That really would be dishonest debating.
------------------------Original Message---------------
Robin Hamilton wrote:
You, see, there's my problem, and I come on it again and again when I'm trying to make sense of what you say. You have a stream of terms which seem to imply a strict usage and considered theoretical backgrounds, then you come out with, "I mean the commonly accepted dictionary definition of the word."
The only response to that particular wildly-optimistic statement is, "Which bloody dictionary?" It assumes some sort of Platonic object called "the dictionary" which exists behinds all the various ones which exist in various fashions, and don't always agree in how they define words, and anyway are (when they don't simply repeat their immediate predecessor) the judgement, usually nowadays that of a committee, of what the word might mean when used by a variety of people in a variety of contexts.
|