Why Bother Clarifying the Meanings of Words We All Know Already?
Reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for noncommercial purposes, with attribution and with notice of
copyright, is permitted; reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for commercial purposes, or without attribution,
or without notice of copyright, without the author's express permission, is not permitted.
Communication would be easier if everyone used words in exactly the same ways. Alas, 'tis not so. In fact, different
people often use the same words differently. When they do, they wind up thinking that they're communicating
when they're really miscommunicating. Misunderstandings arise; even enmity may arise; and all because
two people mistake each other's meanings. This can happen in an academic debate, or it can happen in a
personal relationship. But because it happens--and especially since it happens often and easily and sometimes
without our recognizing that it is happening--and because it happens without any sinister intent or nefarious
motivation whatsoever, it's important that we give each other the benefit of the doubt whenever we hear each other
saying things that we find inappropriate. See here.
In philosophical discourse and in any other discussion of ideas, precise communication of meaning can be important. So,
we need to make sure that we really are clearly communicating our ideas. Part of doing so is defining our terms so that
we know that we're all using the same words the same ways. If, in a discussion of God, one person has in mind merely a
deistic universal creator that doesn't interact with human beings after the creation, while another person has in mind a
more active deity who listens to prayers and sometimes intervenes in human affairs via the performance of miracles, the
two aren't really discussing the same entity. If one person has in mind a loving spiritual substance suffusing physical
reality, while another person has in mind a fatherly old man in the sky, the two aren't really discussing the same entity.
We need to agree on our usage of terms within conversations, at least, or we run the risk of badly misunderstanding
each other.
I have found, both in philosophical discussions and in personal conversations, a great deal of variance among human
beings as to how they use the same words. I would have imagined, for example, that all Christians believed at least
in the divinity of Jesus and in the resurrection, in either its physical or its spiritual form. But no! Not all believe even
that much. There really isn't uniformity of use of the word.
A woman once asked me, upon learning that I was having problems with my knee, if I "loved" my knee. I couldn't
understand what she meant. I understand loving a person, or a pet--one for whom one feels affection. Or, I could
understand "loving" in the sense of "liking very much"--loving this movie, or loving that book, or loving to play tennis.
However, I couldn't understand what was meant by "loving" my knee--unless what was meant, I suggested, was
that I liked having my knee and liked having it function properly and appreciated its proper functioning. Otherwise, I
just didn't know what she was trying to ask.
She could have said, "Yes, that's what I meant," or, "No, that's not what I meant." On other occasions, I've worked out
with other people what they've meant, or have gradually gotten across what I've meant.
But she simply got upset that I didn't automatically know what she meant, and it was the end of our conversation. It's
important, I think, for us to realize that other people really don't understand what we mean; that other people
really do use certain words differently than we do (which ones will vary from person to person, of course). And
it's important, I think, for us to try to patiently and tolerantly work out what other people do mean by their words and to
patiently and tolerantly explain what we mean by our words, rather than getting upset by each other's failure to
understand what might seem to be "simple English." Getting upset isn't going to help.
But ordinary conversation, at least, has a degree of flexibility that philosophical discourse lacks. We don't have to
understand perfectly each and every word of a social conversation; we can let things pass, generally without harm. In
philosophical discourse, though, the word you "let pass" might be crucial to the argument. It might make the difference
between accepting a point and rejecting it. We really need to take the time to clarify language use in philosophy.
(© 2007 by Keith Brian Johnson)
Clarifying Terms Home
Site Home