On Communication and Definitions

In the comments of the post called, "Philosophy of Religion" and "Theology": What's the Difference?, r.j.marvin and I have been having an interesting conversation on communication. A concern was expressed: when individuals engage in dialogue, can they rationally discuss topics where the definitions of major points of contention are unclear? For example, assume that an atheist, a Calvinist, and a Muslim were engaged in a dialogue about God. The atheist remarks that the idea of God is internally contradictory, due to the nature of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. The Calvinist remarks that God has mysteries that cannot be explained, such as the nature of the trinity, but is not internally contradictory. The Muslim remarks that the idea of God is not internally contradictory and, while mysterious, has no apparent contradictions. It seems like all three of these discussants have different definitions of God. Can they, thus, rationally discuss the topic?

First, I will argue why they can. Second, I will defend against reasons why they allegedly could not by addressing the initial quandary.

If it were true that individuals can maintain distinct definitions of words without the possibility of harmonization, definitions would be meaningless and devoid of substance, because they would not have any references. Imagine if I defined "Quarorglewoggle" as "Gltheltic-giborglewoggle". If you asked me to define "Gltheltic-jiborglejiggle", I would continue using nonsense words with no real-world references, and would eventually come back to "Quarorglewoggle". We would thus not be able to have any legitimate knowledge of what is being communicated. In other words, if the skeptical concern is legitimate, we would not have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words. Since we do have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words (given that you are reading this), it is not the case that the skeptical concern is true (and, thus, the skeptical concern is false), at least about some words.

"Some words", however, is very different from "all words" (there's a puzzle for you). Could there exist a word that, through the method I outlined above, can be circularly defined in nonsensical terms? Yes-- consider "quarorglewoggle". Here's my question: we have the word "quarorglewoggle". Is there actually a reference of the word? In other words, we can imagine "quarorglewoggle" (the word); can the speaker imagine quarorglewoggle (the reference of the word)? If not, they are either deceiving their fellow discussant (but we're assuming that they're acting in good faith, so this isn't an issue), or there is actually something that the word refers to. There exist many properties that, as we have already established, are not nonsensical (in that they can be meaningfully defined). Each of these properties either do or do not relate to the definition of the word. For example, if I defined the "best flavor of icecream" as "that particular taste of ice cream that is most pleasing to the taster", the property of being "Cherry-Vanilla" does not relate to the definition of the word-- merely the instantiation (the carrying-out) of the definition.

Back to our initial quandary. If a Calvinist claims that the definition of God, via the Trinity, is mysterious but not contradictory, we should tell him/her that they are mistaken. The Trinity is no more a part of the definition of God than Cherry-Vanilla is part of the definition of the best flavor of ice-cream; it's part of the instantiation. The Muslim's claim is coherent. The Atheist's claim, that the definition of God entails a contradiction (omni-benevolence and omnipotence) sets us up for a great topic that could be discussed, but makes the same mistake as a Calvinist. The Greek gods were certainly not omnibenevolent, nor were they omnipotent, and yet they are still referred to as gods. The Atheist concern is with a specific instantiation of the definition of God, not with the definition of God itself.

In conclusion, we must be careful when we distinguish between definitions and instantiations of definitions. There are no true contradictions in reality (assertion on my part, feel free to challenge it), and thus no definition will be contradictory. Instantiations of definitions, however, may be. The definition of "contradiction" is not contradictory, but all instantiations of "contradictions" are, necessarily, contradictory.

Make sense? Share your thoughts, comments, and arguments below. I look forward to your feedback!

Hail to the Chief (A Charge to Philosophers)

Officer elections were held last night, and I am pleased to say that the club is left in very capable hands; this is one of the first years where I feel that every officer is fully capable, responsible, and has a passion for what we do. Congratulations to those elected! Even though it's time for me to retire from my position as Editor-in-Chief (due in no small part to my upcoming graduation), I might continue to post on occasion as a Guest Writer; we shall see what happens.

At any rate, Andrea Lowry, Arete's new Editor-in-Chief, has been a poster for quite some time, and will do a great job running the blog. I'm sure that she will handle things very well, continue to innovate, and perhaps even recruit some new writers and commenters into the mix. Hopefully some of the new officers will even consider posting a bit!

So, thanks for reading my posts throughout the months. I've come a long way from those first few posts, and even managed to create a few that I am genuinely proud of.

I would challenge you, dear reader, to be active! Take charge! Write something, post something, comment on something. Your investment bears a causal relationship to your return, and the responsibility you assume bears a direct correlation with your investment. If you're not active in the club, come check out a meeting! If you're not an officer, but have some ideas, talk to an officer and see if you can get something started! And, if you've been blessed with the opportunity to be an officer, make the most of it-- I can assure you that, if you work hard and maintain a passion for what you do, it can be one of the most rewarding experiences throughout your entire college experience.

I humbly say that I have been blessed with many opportunities, and for them I am grateful. However, I firmly believe that I have pursued them, as best I could, to the furthest ends possible, and I do believe that I have made a long-term impact on the club, its members, and even myself. I'm sad that my time as President has drawn to a close, but I am proud of how I used the time I was given. New officers, don't stand by the sidelines; act! Take control! Use this time creatively and forcefully, because it is incredible how quickly it goes. Philosophia Religioque-- now the Berry Philosophical Society-- is a club, but it has the potential to subjectively be much more if you live up to it. I would dare say that we have done things of importance, of significance, and, odd as this may sound for some, there is contained within the potential for edification, and for glory.

It has been a glorious year indeed!

Please note that, unless otherwise indicated by Andrea, this post is ineligible for the Arete contest.