--- Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > By your argument, as I'm understanding it, nothing you say can have > meaning, because, as I'm understanding it, none of your words can be agreed > on, which is to say, defined. As far as torture goes, the word wrong may > not appear in the definition, but certainly torture would appear on a list > of attributes of what can't be present if civilization were to flourish, > which is how I understood Omar's point. Ah! But you are not understanding the argument I fear. For example, you have responded to my post which contained no definitions (not even of 'definition'). If it were a post _without any meaning_ (a mere 'white noise' as it were) you could hardly have responded in the meaningful (though, I suggest, mistaken) way that you have. That it clearly has a meaning, though it offers no definitions, defeats your opening point. The post pointed out that the _persistent_ demand for definitions in order to to establish meaning is _logically incoherent_ because it leads (logically/inevitably) to either an (unsatisfactory) infinite regress or circularity. You fail to challenge, or perhaps even understand, this. The last point you make on behalf of OK may be alright if we water-down his thesis - but so watered-down it has nothing to do with definitions being integral to meaning and so does not attack my attack on the idea that something _substantive_ can be proved _by definition_. If not watered-down this last point (I suggest) is plainly open to many objections, for example:- sad to say, but true, some form of coercive structure is endemic to any "civilisation" - and "torture" is simply not a clearly defined term but somewhere along the continuum of coercive behaviours. Second, it is in fact quite possible to have a quite sophisticated "civilisation" and yet there is "torture" beneath the surface (consider, one example among many, the ancient Romans; the Elizabethans; also modern Iraq). [In fact, why don't you name one sophisticated "civilisation" that was entirely without coercive structures or even "torture" - and explain how this model works and can be generalised?]. Please understand: "torture" is _at best_ a necessary evil (in my view, anyway). I am not at all defending "torture" (except, sometimes, as a necessary evil) or suggesting it is the aim of "civilisation" to promote torture. On the contrary I am (implicitly) defending Popper's view that the central aim of "civilisation" is to reduce violence and suffering. But I do not think the serious fight against violence and suffering is helped by saying that these, or even "torture", are wrong _by definition_; and I still suggest it is wrong to say that they are wrong _by definition_. They are things to be opposed rather than promoted - but not, please God help us, by something as flimsy and lacking in substance as definitional arguments. Donal ___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html