>Define your terms so that I may detract from the original discussion and centre on your definition providing my own definition which is no less arbitrary and then use that clarification as a manner in which to win the debate when the original debate we were having was entirely unrelated to the usage of that word
God, I wish I could kill these pseuds.
How about you stop being a faggot and "debating" people. Just talk to them so you don't have to be third hand belligerent in a malasian rice spice symposium.
If we're not talking about the same thing, then it's really hard to have a conversation, there's nothing wrong with defining your terms.
"... a Malasian rice spice symposium..."
Kek, that really got to me.
You do have to define your terms in order to properly discuss most abstract ideas.
The pseud comment seems ironic or satiric.
what this looks like from other people's point of view is that you have a hard time understanding what is at issue and that your mind tends to wander from the point of contention. it only becomes necessary to define terms when arguing with stupid, scatter-brained people who cant distinguish the essential elements of an argument from the merely accidental.
you've been living your whole life as an idiot having people explain things to you in simpletons terms, and then come here and complain that these people, smarter than you, are able to show you why you're wrong.
truly pathetic. and a frogposter, no less.
>unironically arguing with people on the internet
that's the real sign of a pseud
>You do have to define your terms in order to properly discuss most abstract ideas.
please read "two dogmas of empiricism" by w.v.o. quine
Because...
Why don't you define what 'read' means you fucking pseud.
lol someone got BTFO
>I don't want to think about specifics or be rigorous in my argumentation, I just want confirmation bias to assure me that the conspiracy theory I hold as a worldview is correct because people are calling me a retard and/or a faggot, not engaging with my shitty nonsense argument.
because this person is operating with a naive view according to which the linguistic question of how to define the terms we use can be cleanly separated from, and posed independently of, the factual issues that we debate using those words. quine refutes this view
Why don't you refute it instead of being a spergy parrot?
>Why don't you refute it instead of being a spergy parrot?
because quine does a better job than i would
also, quine's article is common knowledge among people who are interested in philosophy, so it isn't expecting much to expect someone to read it
>quine refutes this view
So? I think you put all your eggs in one fragile basket.
>because quine does a better job than i would
That is, you're too lazy and intellectually dishonest to come up with an original formulation of an argument. Go back to whatever digital hole you crawled out of
>because this person
>is operating with a naive view according to which the linguistic question of how to define the terms we use can be cleanly separated from, and posed independently of, the factual issues that we debate using those words.
That isn't implied in that post at all, nor does Quine's article contradict user's post. You're just misusing it as an excuse to be lazy.
>So? I think you put all your eggs in one fragile basket.
okay, so explain why quine is wrong
>you're too lazy and intellectually dishonest to come up with an original formulation of an argument
that's not what i said, you should work on your reading comprehension
>That isn't implied in that post at all, nor does Quine's article contradict user's post.
yes, it is, and yes, it does. if definitional questions cannot be separated from the first-order, factual questions we are debating, then there is no need to first define our terms. in fact, you cannot define your terms without taking some stand on the questions you are debating using those terms, so this idea that first you define your terms and then you go on to debate is naive.
>Buttblasted
Check
>Multireply
Check
>Damage control
Check
Grade A BTFO
who are you quoting?
No, you didn't say it, you tacitly admitted it.
He didn't say you can't define terms, only that the analytic vs. synthetic proof distinction is based on circularity according to the theories of logical positivism and empiricism, which it is.
But obviously, you're still going to need to agree on terms with the person you're debating. If I say "Shit monkey hose airplane sprinkler," you're going to take those terms as they're *commonly defined* unless I clarify my usage to show that I mean "You are a fucking retard."
>if definitional questions cannot be separated from the first-order, factual questions we are debating, then there is no need to first define our terms
Where are you getting this? What is your argument?
>in fact, you cannot define your terms without taking some stand on the questions you are debating using those terms
If you intend on taking a stand anyway, that's no reason not to define them. It's also doesn't change the fact that you may have to define your terms for people to know what the fuck you're trying to say.
>He didn't say you can't define terms, only that the analytic vs. synthetic proof distinction is based on circularity
more precisely, he argues that there is no analytic/synthetic distinction, not just that it is circular. since definitions are supposed to be analytic, rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction means that you cannot simply define terms on their own, in isolation from the factual or synthetic statements that you express with those terms. definition, if it happens at all, happens holistically and is settled together with all the synthetic questions that are being debated. so, you cannot first settle your definitions and then debate; it all happens at once
>But obviously, you're still going to need to agree on terms with the person you're debating.
i have to be able to translate your idiolect into my own (and vice versa), but that isn't the same as us all agreeing on settled definitions at the outset and it will never be perfect (because translation is never perfect)
I never said it was "perfect," and the fact that you understood the preceding thought indicates you are sufficiently capable of translating my "idiolect" into your own for us to continue -- arguing. No one in this thread claimed that you could completely settle the question of a definition, otherwise languages couldn't evolve. It can only be put to the side in the moment, for the purposes of moving forward.
>Where are you getting this? What is your argument?
the naive picture is this: first, we settle definitions of our terms. then, we can have debates using those terms, where we might disagree. my point is that if you understand quine, then you understand that you cannot first settle the definitions and then have the debate, because questions of fact and questions of meaning are inseparable, and if you cannot do one without the other, then there is no need to insist on precisely defining your terms before you debate.
One of you is mentally deficient. It can either be you or Quine.
>I never said it was "perfect," and the fact that you understood the preceding thought indicates you are sufficiently capable of translating my "idiolect" into your own for us to continue
yes, but notice that neither of us did what was suggested here >You do have to define your terms in order to properly discuss most abstract ideas.
here we are, discussing abstract ideas, and neither of us has defined what we mean by "idea," "term," "analytic," "abstract," "inseparable," (you get the point). our understanding of each other's idiolect emerges holistically in the course of our disagreement. would pausing the debate to define these terms help?
Pausing the debate to define terms would help if you thought I meant "debate" by "debate" while I thought "debate" meant "fuck you in the ass."
>then use that clarification as a manner in which to win the debate
If your argument is dependent on "No one must look too deep into my logic, or else it falls apart", you were never going to win anyways.
When it comes to terms like 'great art' then you have to pause the debate
>if definitional questions cannot be separated from the first-order, factual questions we are debating, then there is no need to first define our terms
>you cannot first settle the definitions and then have the debate, because questions of fact and questions of meaning are inseparable, and if you cannot do one without the other, then there is no need to insist on precisely defining your terms before you debate.
You didn't provide an argument, you just reworded the same statement. Additionally, I would point out that doesn't claim that definition and debate are completely separate activities, only that definition is necessary to debate. It seems important to you to argue against the idea that one first provides definitions and then, separately, debates facts, but that was never said.
where in his article does he refute this view? as far as i know, when he speaks of definitions, he says that they are synonymous in their nature. how does that pertain to "speaking of factual issues that we debate using those words"? what you say sounds more like something wittgenstein would say, not quine.
the article argues against the analytic/synthetic distinction (in the first section, by showing that all attempts to define it are circular and in the second by defending holism, which is inconsistent with the distinction). the naive view that definitional statements are separable from the kinds of factual statements people debate presupposes the analytic/synthetic distinction (definitions are on the analytic side, while the statements we debate are on the synthetic)