"Good"?

[stan1980]

Well, then "logic" would be one. It is thrown around as a synonym for "reason", with no respect to what it actually is - a mathematical science concerned with relationships between the truth values of statements.

"It's not corruption, it's natural development." Your words, not mine.

 

[quatona]

I see moral terms being bandied about willy nilly all the time on this board, without much explanation for what is actually meant by them. Frequently the root of our arguments is our difference of opinion about what these terms mean. So what do you really mean when you say "good", "bad", "morally right/wrong", "moral", "(un)ethical", "evil", "fair", "(un)equal", and so on?

I find myself having problems understanding these words as communicating anything than the preferences of the speaker.

I find that strongly indicated by the fact that arguments in favour of any supposedly objective moral system in the end come down to arguments from consequence, and are ultimately circular.
Like: "Hitler was evil, because..., because..., because..., because not even Hitler could be called evil (and this is an idea we both don´t like, isn´t it?)."

And are there any other terms you have issues with?

It´s not so much the terms themselves, but the way they are used, I think. While a lot of terms appear to be perfectly useful if used in regards to a clearly defined frame of reference, I often see them used as though they were meaningful even beyond any given frame of reference.
One example would be "truth".

 

[cantata]

"It's not corruption, it's natural development." Your words, not mine.

There is a difference between the wholesale changing of the meaning of a word over time, and the misuse and misunderstanding of a word.

 

[stan1980]

There is a difference between the wholesale changing of the meaning of a word over time, and the misuse and misunderstanding of a word.

It's all natural development to me.

I almost always know what the speaker means in context when a word is misused, so I don't see a problem.

Take objective; opposite of subjective. Many people use it when they are judging something, but putting their personal feelings aside eg "I hate Maradona, but if I'm being objective, he was the best footballer ever". You're not really being objective, you are being subjective, but I think the listener will know exactly what you mean in that context.

 

[quatona]

There is a difference between the wholesale changing of the meaning of a word over time, and the misuse and misunderstanding of a word.

It seems to me that the first is the result of the latter.
(In which I find the terms "misuse" and "misunderstanding of a word" to be somewhat misleading about the way language works, btw.).

 

[cantata]

It's all natural development to me.

I almost always know what the speaker means in context when a word is misused, so I don't see a problem.

Take objective; opposite of subjective. Many people use it when they are judging something, but putting their personal feelings aside eg "I hate Maradona, but if I'm being objective, he was the best footballer ever". You're not really being objective, you are being subjective, but I think the listener will know exactly what you mean in that context.

But indeed it belongs the jamboree us never undercooked any paranoia.

 

[stan1980]

But indeed it belongs the jamboree us never undercooked any paranoia.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[cantata]

It seems to me that the first is the result of the latter.

Ultimately, yes, that is frequently the case (although occasionally efforts are deliberately made to change language).

(In which I find the terms "misuse" and "misunderstanding of a word" to be somewhat misleading about the way language works, btw.).

Fair enough. I think if you use language in a manner such that others can't understand you because you deviate from the consensus as to the meaning of words, it is fair to call it misuse, but I guess you could just refer to it as "creative"

For example, if I decided to use the word "ostrich" for the thing that other English speakers would usually refer to as "Canada", I feel it would be fair to say I was misusing the word "ostrich".

 

[cantata]

Now you're just being silly.

Well, my point was that we have to have some consensus about how language is to be used if we are going to understand one another.

 

[quatona]

But indeed it belongs the jamboree us never undercooked any paranoia.

I have tried all combinations of the more and less common definitions of the words used that I am aware of, and none of them allows me to understand that as a meaningful sentence. I don´t even seem to understand the grammatical structure of this sentence.
Care to reword it for me?

 

[cantata]

I have tried all combinations of the more and less common definitions of the words used that I am aware of, and none of them allows me to understand that as a meaningful sentence. I don´t even seem to understand the grammatical structure of this sentence.
Care to reword it for me?

Well obviously it meant "And yet I suspect in fact you won't understand this sentence."

 

[quatona]

Ultimately, yes, that is frequently the case (although occasionally efforts are deliberately made to change language).

Wouldn´t that be exactly that what you just called "misuse of words"?
These efforts are either successful (in which case they result in a change of common usage), or they aren´t.

For me the problem seems to lie somewhere else:
I am assuming that the person speaking uses a word in a definition that I am aware of and can easily discern. I think this assumption is reasonable, because it would be in the very interest of the goal the person apparently pursues: Communicating something. I am also assuming that the person subscribes to the silent agreement that every communicator tries to keep to one of the definitions that are considered established (unless he explicitly providing his definition).
I am assuming that everyone is aware that this is the only way language can result in successful communication: either I give the definition along with the term, or I will be assumed to use the word in one of its broadly established meanings.
In practice I often notice that one or several of these my assumptions are not warranted. I am disappointed, frustrated, because the person opposite doesn´t match my expectations.

Fair enough. I think if you use language in a manner such that others can't understand you because you deviate from the consensus as to the meaning of words, it is fair to call it misuse, but I guess you could just refer to it as "creative"

I refer to the result as "misunderstanding", in which "misunderstanding" signifies a process between two or more persons, as opposed to being a statement about one of the parties involved.

For example, if I decided to use the word "ostrich" for the thing that other English speakers would usually refer to as "Canada", I feel it would be fair to say I was misusing the word "ostrich".

Hey, wasn´t "fair" one of the words said you had a problem with, in the OP?

 

[quatona]

Well obviously it meant "And yet I suspect in fact you won't understand this sentence."

Sorry, this wasn´t obvious to me.
Thanks for the explanation.
For further reference and in the interest of successful communication between you and me I have a question, though.

The fact that you use these two sentences as communicating the same information:
1. But indeed it belongs the jamboree us never undercooked any paranoia.
2. And yet I suspect in fact you won't understand this sentence.

suggests to me that you use "but/and", "indeed/yet", "I/it" etc. as synonyms. Am I right in assuming that you consider this terminology (and expect me to consider it)as the basis for our future conversations?

 

[cantata]

Wouldn´t that be exactly that what you just called "misuse of words"?
These efforts are either successful (in which case they result in a change of common usage), or they aren´t.

Yes, I don't think we disagree. I agreed with you that frequently changes in language result from the misuse of words. But there is always an interim period where a lot of people are confused.

For me the problem seems to lie somewhere else:
I am assuming that the person speaking uses a word in a definition that I am aware of and can easily discern. I think this assumption is reasonable, because it would be in the very interest of the goal the person apparently pursues: Communicating something. I am also assuming that the person subscribes to the silent agreement that every communicator tries to keep to one of the definitions that are considered established (unless he explicitly providing his definition).
I am assuming that everyone is aware that this is the only way language can result in successful communication: either I give the definition along with the term, or I will be assumed to use the word in one of its broadly established meanings.
In practice I often notice that one or several of these my assumptions are not warranted. I am disappointed, frustrated, because the person opposite doesn´t match my expectations.

That is precisely the issue, yes.

I refer to the result as "misunderstanding", in which "misunderstanding" signifies a process between two or more persons, as opposed to being a statement about one of the parties involved.

That's fair enough, I stand corrected.

Hey, wasn´t "fair" one of the words said you had a problem with, in the OP?

Touché!

Sorry, this wasn´t obvious to me.
Thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome!

For further reference and in the interest of successful communication between you and me I have a question, though.

The fact that you use these two sentences as communicating the same information:
1. But indeed it belongs the jamboree us never undercooked any paranoia.
2. And yet I suspect in fact you won't understand this sentence.

suggests to me that you use "but/and", "indeed/yet", "I/it" etc. as synonyms. Am I right in assuming that you consider this terminology (and expect me to consider it)as the basis for our future conversations?

Surprisingly enough, I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I don't think we disagree. I agreed with you that frequently changes in language result from the misuse of words. But there is always an interim period where a lot of people are confused.

To summarize my point (although I suspect it might not be necessary anymore ):
"Misuse" (in my understanding of the word) tends to come with an attempt of blaming one of the persons involved in a misunderstanding for the misunderstanding, and I suspect that it is even likely to be understood as implying some sort of malintent on part of the person who finds herself described as "misusing" something.
I find this part not only redundant, but also counterproductive to my goal of clearing up a misunderstanding (and preparing the ground for a smoother communication in the future), because in my experience the person finding herself "accused" of "misuse" will likely to be put more effort in "defending herself (or her use of the word)" than with cooperating towards the goal of a more successful communication.

 

[cantata]

To summarize my point (although I suspect it might not be necessary anymore ):
"Misuse" (in my understanding of the word) tends to come with an attempt of blaming one of the persons involved in a misunderstanding for the misunderstanding, and I suspect that it is even likely to be understood as implying some sort of malintent on part of the person who finds herself described as "misusing" something.
I find this part not only redundant, but also counterproductive to my goal of clearing up a misunderstanding (and preparing the ground for a smoother communication in the future), because in my experience the person finding herself "accused" of "misuse" will likely to be put more effort in "defending herself (or her use of the word)" than with cooperating towards the goal of a more successful communication.

My only criticism is that, while language is obviously fluid, when there is a disagreement about the meaning of a term, it seems important to me that misunderstandings are cleared up to the effect that participants are encouraged to use a word in such a way that they will be able to make themselves understood not only to their fellow participants in the current discussion, but also to others in the future. In other words, I think if there is a decision to be made about how a word is best used, it is advisable for all participants to adopt the most commonly used range of definitions thereof (unless they agree that in this case they are using a word in a sense which is specific or technically relevant to the matter being discussed).


For example, if I were to mistakenly use the word "ostrich" to refer to the thing that most English speakers would call "Canada", I would be grateful not only for your pointing out of the misunderstanding, but also for your correction of my English. I would like to be advised that most people call Canada "Canada", and that it would be easiest for me if I was to adopt the same terminology in my future discussions with others.

What I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that my inclination to use "misuse" rather than "misunderstanding" stems from my feeling that there is, in a certain sense, a "correct" range of meanings for any given word, in the sense that if you use the word outside of this range of meanings without explaining what you mean, you are likely to be gravely misunderstood. "Misunderstanding" seems inadequate as a description when one person is using a word in a sense which is within the "correct" range of meanings, and the other is not.

 

[stan1980]

Well, my point was that we have to have some consensus about how language is to be used if we are going to understand one another.

Perhaps you could give other examples, but this time 'real life' ones, where someone has used words from your OP, which have meant you have been unable or found it difficult to understand the speaker. Then I might be able to understand why you have issues.

 

[quatona]

My only criticism is that, while language is obviously fluid, when there is a disagreement about the meaning of a term, it seems important to me that misunderstandings are cleared up to the effect that participants are encouraged to use a word in such a way that they will be able to make themselves understood not only to their fellow participants in the current discussion, but also to others in the future. In other words, I think if there is a decision to be made about how a word is best used, it is advisable for all participants to adopt the most commonly used range of definitions thereof (unless they agree that in this case they are using a word in a sense which is specific or technically relevant to the matter being discussed).

I agree completely. I am merely advocating a different approach.
I also find it confusing when I see some people arguing from the dictionary at one occasion, and arguing from "definitions - schmefinitions" at other occasions. It seems to suggest that they do not agree with what you and I feel "is advisable" for all participants.
I do indeed think that "striving for accepting semantic conventions" is a sine qua non postulation for language to be a means of communication, and so must be the assumption that everybody involved not only strives for it but is justified in relying that everybody else does. (For purposes of focussing I will leave out the actually very important problem that, despite there being dictionaries and such, there are still different conventions available that different persons could consider common ground. A frequent cause for misunderstandings.)
Thus, if learning that a person does not understand this minimum prerequisite for language to function (not perfectly, anyways, but with usable results, at least), I don´t see much point in further conversation.
I do, however, feel that people - although not necessarily being consciously aware of it, and often even blatantly violating it - naturally accept this axiom.
My approach - as opposed to yours, that comes down to arguing from rules - seems to be more successful, in my experience: I will merely say "I don´t understand what you are saying here, please try something else". This approach relies on the assumption that a person communicating has an interest in being understood (I can´t think of any other, stronger reason). IOW: I won´t say "I don´t understand you because you are violating a rule", but I will try to practically help her finding out that her method isn´t gaining her the desired result, and even can´t gain it. I´d like her to find out herself that she wants and needs such a rule.

For example, if I were to mistakenly use the word "ostrich" to refer to the thing that most English speakers would call "Canada", I would be grateful not only for your pointing out of the misunderstanding, but also for your correction of my English.

I don´t seem to be concerned so much with the "correctness" but with the results my use of words gains. If being shown that everybody else has a different use of words than me my use of words doesn´t enable me to communicate successfully.

I would like to be advised that most people call Canada "Canada", and that it would be easiest for me if I was to adopt the same terminology in my future discussions with others.

Exactly. I think there is a hell of a difference between "it would be easier" and "it is correct", in multiple respects.

What I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that my inclination to use "misuse" rather than "misunderstanding" stems from my feeling that there is, in a certain sense, a "correct" range of meanings for any given word, in the sense that if you use the word outside of this range of meanings without explaining what you mean, you are likely to be gravely misunderstood.

Then why not simply saying that which is the actually important and useful part:
"You are likely to be misunderstood"?

"Misunderstanding" seems inadequate as a description when one person is using a word in a sense which is within the "correct" range of meanings, and the other is not.

Indeed, for someone who is concerned with who is "correct" or "incorrect", the term "misunderstanding" wouldn´t allow for expressing this concept.
I personally still don´t seem to see the benefits of this concept and even less of emphasizing it.
"Unless you keep to certain semantic conventions, you are likely to be misunderstood" seems to say everything that´s necessary and useful for any practical purpose.
As you probably have noticed, that was my intent when taking your funny sentence seriously: Demonstrating how there can be a response that is
a. purely constructive
b. doing without judgement calls
c. practically showing how the person opposite does not act in her own best interests (the consistent use of her approach would result in a situation that is not desirable for her).

 

[quatona]

Now you got me thinking about one of my pet topics: verbal communication!

Here is an - for the actively communicating person - inconvenient fact:
The result of communication is always that which the receiver gets.

IOW: What I meant to say is completely irrelevant for the result of my communication. In conjunction with the reasonable assumption that the actively communicating person has an interest in getting her message across (whilst the receiver can not necessarily be assumed to be interested in hearing the message, and on top only knows what he gets - as opposed to what the sender intended to send) this puts a heavy burden on the shoulder of the sender. Some may say an "unduely or unfairly" heavy burden - but, well, that´s just the way it is due to the nature of verbal communication.

That means for your "ostrich/Canada" example :
If I know that you call "ostrich" what I call "Canada" the easiest way of getting my message across to you would be to say "ostrich" for that which I think of as "Canada".

Here´s a practical real life example - a situation I am facing with pretty much every new student:
What the "official" international guitar terminology calls the "1st string" or "highest string" is pretty counterintuitive: It´s the string that is furthest away from the player and the one closest to the bottom of the room.
If they start disputing and complaining, I don´t see much point in telling them "the way you say it it´s incorrect".
Instead I tell them that their terminlogy makes perfect sense to me, but - unfortunately - official international conventions have determined the opposite terminology. They would be perfectly justified in keeping to their own terminology - it would just come with a lot of drawbacks for everyone involved, including them themselves, on the long run. Firstly, I have been used to the official terminology for 40 years, and keeping in mind who of my students uses which terminology would be asking too much from my memory. Secondly, sooner or later they will read guitar literature, and all this literature uses the "official" terminology, anyways. Thirdly, sooner or later they would run into the same problem that I have: they would meet other guitarists and would never know what terminology which of them uses.
So, no matter how arbitrary or counterintuitive this convention is, it spares everyone involved a lot of unnecessary effort to simply adopt it. And that´s the nature and purpose of semantic conventions, after all.
On another note, if they would try to motivate the ISIGL to change the official terminlogy to their more intuitive one, they would have my full support. It´s just that I personally don´t feel it´s worth the effort to become active myself.

 

[wanderingone]

The intention is to have a definition fight, essentially, and it is a pretty life-and-death discussion.

terms like "good" have no true definition without context. It's not like "map" or "elephant" Certainly you can toss out a dictionary definition but that doesn't hold up in determining value.

Is anything inherently good? Lobster is good food.. unless I eat it, then it's likely a murder weapon.