Hey! I'm only getting around to this now.
I think I agree with most of what's been said here. The definition of terms has a time and place, and historical circumstances behind it. Therefore it should always be used with caution. Also, I believe @sprinkles made an excellent and important point above: if somebody makes you want to use a dictionary to prove that a word means a particular thing, that person is most likely not being intellectually honest, and will find ways around your dictionary quote anyway. It will lead nowhere. If both parties have a truly philosophical disposition, they will agree on definitions of important terms to begin with, so as to clear that path from the beginning. Sometimes it will be obvious that discussion is stalling because the parties are using the same term in different ways, in which case it's healthy to pause and agree on a shared meaning.
There is, however, one thing that I consider (almost) unchanging in meaning, and absolutely crucial to productive conversation. It's a feature that is very often forgotten about, or not engaged with, or considered "pedantic" by those who are accused of not respecting it, and given examples of how they do not. This is logical consistency, or perhaps, to be more precise, the internal consistency of one's propositions. I continue to find it frankly dumbfounding how many logical fallacies people commit when they argue, mostly unbeknownst to themselves; often, they will not even be picked up by the other person. It's a tricky issue though, as pointing out a person's fallacious reasoning can come across haughty and be dismissed on those grounds. And a "logical dictionary" won't exactly settle the issue, either.
Arthur Schopenhauer published a book called The Art of Being Right, on the main fallacies that people commit in conversation. As the good pessimist-cynic that he was, he actually advocated their use in debates. Nevertheless, it's an extremely precious, and rather short document that will incomparably enhance anybody's discursive-logical baggage in conversation and will allow them to shield themselves from spurious arguments. I cannot stress enough how much I recommend reading it. It's here online.
Last edited:
