I am writing this post because I see many debates centered on differences in definitions. Some people approach their word-impasses by mistakenly trying to debate the “real” definition of the word. But words don’t have “real” definitions. It is in this sense that “definitions” are a myth. It is surprising how a misunderstanding of the nature of words and language unnecessarily fuels many heated debates.
Words don’t possess definitions–particular people give words definitions. Sure, you can grab a dictionary, and say “Look, here are the definitions”. OK, you are right. In that sense, words have definitions but using the same method we can also show that Santa has a big white beard by opening a book and pointing at the chap’s face.Dictionaries are made by people who probably used other human-made dictionaries as their reference. But different dictionaries often given very different definitions. And dictionaries from two hundred years ago give different meanings for words in dictionaries today. This illustrates the illusion of the solidity of definitions.
So sure, definitions exist but they are not permanent, fixed or stable. Let me list a few other ways of saying this:
- Words are tools. Words are negotiation techniques. Words are tacit contracts to facilitate conversation between two people.
- Words change with time and users and thus are unstable.
- Words have uses — lots of uses that vary from user to user. Sure, you can scream “you are using that word incorrectly”, but all you are really saying is “most people don’t use that word that way.” But even then, when you say “most”, you are only describing a certain population. The reason words change is that this “most” attribute fluxes with time. A minority become a majority and dictionaries adjust — often years later.
- Dictionaries list multiple definitions to catch just some of the multiple uses. But the uses are not fixed, stable or non-negotiable.
The illusion of solidity, discreteness, and permanence of words is possibly in part due to two things:
- Concrete Words
- Desire to Control
Concerning Concrete Words: How can we help but view words as having fixed definitions when we think of words describing “concrete” objects like a “horse”. One may agree that the fuzzy, flexible, contradictory and negotiable sense of words is more clearly seen in abstract words like “freedom” or “love”, but they feel pretty secure about “horse”. But let’s look at the word “horse”. Is a pony a horse? What about a Zebra? As we dig up evolutionary ancestors of horses, when do they stop being horses?
This reveals the human-derived nature of the word. But what about words like “sulfur”, you may think. Sure, that appears much more stable until you think of isotopes of sulfur. But the person looking for unmovable definitions is right to point to the fact that some words seem less fuzzy than others. But words are a human creation, a creation of mind and relationship and thus fuzzy by nature.
Concerning Control: We use words to manipulate and control our environment — they are a brilliant tool. And we all know the feeling we get when someone tries to take away our tools or our control. Don’t get me wrong — control can be very valuable, but we should not let it deceive us, and we need to understand its role and grasp over us.
So if you disagree with someone about the meaning of a word, then understanding their fluid nature of language and words can help you. If you are willing to let go of the solidity of definitions, here are ways to possibly move on with your definition debate:
- adopt their meaning and use a different word to capture your meaning
- using subscripts or adjectives, give the word a list of nuances that you can agree on
- create a new word you both feel comfortable with — heck, it may catch on and become part of your language years from now.
In philosophy, the notion that words have a real essence and an essential meaning that we can discover is a position taken by Plato. Plato was wrong–brilliant, but wrong. Thus, I do not hold a Platonic view of language. I am not an essentialist. I am not actually sure of the proper categories for my lay philosophical position on language. Perhaps in contrast to a Platonic view, some would use the vague word “nominalist” to describe my view — but I wager that is wrong too. If you know the proper philosophical category for my position (which I know is not unique at all), please let me know. I see definitions as useful temporary constructs to aid communication. They are negotiable and useful but they can also be blinding and contentious. We need to realize that words are our servants, we should not be the servants of words.