4 ms·
I think this get things backwards. Philosophers (save maybe Austin) generally reject the authority of a definition. In the analytic tradition, words are just po
by scoofy 5y ago
I think this get things backwards. Philosophers (save maybe Austin) generally reject the authority of a definition. In the analytic tradition, words are just pointing at things or concepts, and a definition is a heuristic or shorthand.
Fighting over the definition of "exist" is exactly trying to take the concept(s) the two are thinking of, and decide whether they are internally consistent. If they are, all the better, they needn't even be the same, but if they are not internally consistent, then the concept is clearly wrong and not worth discussing.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoI'd say that there are more than one concept that can be labeled by the word "exist". If you don't say which concept you're talking about, and the other person is running with a different concept that wears the same label, that discussion isn't worth having. They could discuss either concept, and have a meaningful discussion (with quite a bit of agreement). But because they're actually discussing different concepts, but using the same word, the discussion just wastes everybody's time.