>That is ludicrous. There is no way in which Wittgenstein could be
>used to back up either these definitions or generally resorting to the
>dictionary.
True--Wittgenstein could NOT be used to back you up--but you used to "the later
work of Wittgenstein" as a reference, thinking the other person would
automatically assume that Witt would agree with you and be too lazy to research
what Witt had to say. You said hardly anything about Witt, just implying him as
a "higher source". Stop that crap!
> I see the
>function of dictionaries as being to give the consensus meanings
>for the contexts in which the words concerned are normally used,
>which is why for many words a number of alternative meanings are
>given. In these particular cases there were no alternatives
>presented that coincided with the usages I criticized.
Wittgenstein compared words to levers in machines--they can be anything in
their context. If a dictionary lists 6 meanings of the same word, that does not
limit the number of ways to use that word.
> People do
>not have to restrict themselves to the dictionary definitions, but
>(a) they risk being misunderstood, and (b) if they wish others to
>accept their usage it must either be innately appealing (a good
>meme) or persuasively explained (supported by good memes).
To respond to (a) the best people can do to avoid being misunderstood seems to
be using words in context. Your (b) answer rests on the premise that people
accept ideas not based on the value of content but on how the ideas are
presented.(ie. good memes, persuasiveness) Your arguments express this belief
since you appear to not make sense logically while using a tone creates an
impression that you actually say something. I have a friend who does a comedy
act, in which people do not find his jokes funny, but other comedians find him
hilarious since he tells non-jokes using a comedy *format*.
>If I was a Roman Catholic, and I said something you thought
>conflicted with Objectivism, would you say what I said "implied an
>opinion that Roman Catholicism does not coincide with objective
>reality"? I guess you would. Objectivism doesn't seem to do
>much for your thinking skills, does it?
The premise here seems to be that Objectivism has a doctrine. Does this doctrine
have a name? An author?
>>Wittgenstein would not agree that these words were used out of context,
>>especially with understanding error correction mechanisms.
>This looks like pure bullshit. I can't make any other comment on
>it until you explain (a) why you think W would take that position,
>and (b) exactly how it is supported by an understanding of error
>correction mechanisms. (And if you think the existence of the
>latter means we can use words without regard for their
>consensual meanings, that's pure bullshit.)
Witt claimed, as I said before, words can mean anything depending on context.
The words 'altruism' and 'egalitarianism' get put in context by error correction
mechanisms--the kind that Lee identified. Reed wrote:
>Obviously we are
>altruistic...in the sense that we can engage in trade, that we can delay
>gratification, that we are willing to "invest" effort today on the
>assumption that there will be return with interest at a later date.
I wrote:
> There is a commonly accepted lie called 'egalitarianism'--the idea that each
>ideology, (ie. >Objectivism, Catholicism, Wiccanism, etc.) is just as good as
>the next.
-David