I have stated that, as I believe, words come to be defined a certain way because definitions (meaning) is "defined" (or prescribed) by objective characteristics. At least, one should observe, that if a word FAILS to apply to reality (when the understanding of it is applied TO reality); then, the word is useless for communicating ideas. Thus, merely taking the "meaning" of a word from the context of other (thereby inherently meaningless) words seems a poor way to "define" it.
This especially becomes tiresome if one is bound by an infinite regress of words to which one would strictly adhere such that EACH must then be defined in turn to support ones arguments. As such, statements like "MW says that apples are typically RED fruit (strictly a made-up example, don't go check)"-- when used as an argument against a statement like "I ate a green apple"-- are no more valid than the paper they are written upon... and certainly less valid than a logical exposition which supplies an ordered reasoning for WHY a word is such that it is and/or HOW such an understanding of the word helps one talk about complex issues.
Brett Lane Robertson
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!: