From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 15:21:42 MST
> (Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>):
> John K Clark wrote:
> >
> >You really have a thing with definitions don't you?
> >
> Yeah, that's probably a fair criticism. I really do. If I don't have
> definitions, I feel like I don't know what I'm talking about, and I find
> that uncomfortable..
There's nothing wrong with looking for and using definitions--they are
useful tools. The all-too-common error is to treat them like facts; as
something that can be right or wrong, rather than as what they are--
which is arbitrarily-chosen tools, like words themselves, with which
the act of reasoning is performed.
When an argument (or what pretends to be an argument) is a loggerheads
over definitions, the easiest thing to do is simply accept your
opponent's definitions fully as they are, propose new words and
definitions for the things /you/ want to discuss, and move on.
Of course that assumes that you /do/ have a clear image of what
you actually want to argue about.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:00 MST