I am unusually particular about the elucidation of one’s definitions and the exhaustive exposition of one’s assumptions when embarking upon an intellectual venture. Part of this fetish stems from my own personal interest in the etymology of words and their present-day interpretations, but my insistence is primarily fueled by my desire to understand what is being said, by myself and by others. Every term actually embodies a concept, a concept that, when considered fully, would yield pages of meaning. Society has managed to effect a radical economization of language by reducing these concepts to short and simple words and phrases, but we should never lose sight of the concept’s full meaning. Unfortunately, the current educational focus on the memorization of terms rather than the understanding of concepts has robbed us of much of the meaning inherent in our language.
Language is a tool. It is a means of communication between individuals and an enabler of the cooperative division of labor. As it is a tool, its value must be judged solely on its ability to perform its function. It is silly, therefore, to speak of keeping a language pure or of defending the virtues of Standard Written English against the corruption of texting lingo or street slang. So long as the meaning that the writer intended to convey is the meaning received by the reader, the term functions perfectly. It is nonsensical to call the use “wrong.” It was clearly right for its purposes. It is, therefore, also incorrect to think that there is an objective meaning of a word. As communicating parties, we may agree to whatever definition we choose. Indeed, the first section of every legal document sets forth the definitions of the words used, and these definitions can change as the parties desire.
It becomes obvious, then, why explicitly setting forth our definitions is so important. If a term is meant to represent an entire concept, and yet has no fixed meaning, it is necessary to, when using the term scientifically, establish the intersubjective meaning of the term. For example, imagine the following exchange:
Person 1: I hate chickens.
Person 2: What? Why?
Person 1: They’re just so big and smelly.
Person 2: I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are chickens really that big and smelly?
Person 1: They’re huge. And I especially hate that sound they make.
Person 2: You mean the crowing in the morning?
Person 1: What? No. I’m talking about that mooing sound they make.
Clearly, there is some confusion in the conversation above. Person 1 uses the word “chicken” to describe what Person 2 would call a “cow.” Now, again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with calling a cow a chicken. The problem arises when the two parties don’t attach the same meaning to the words. Now, the example above seems rather unrealistic. But allow me to offer another one:
Person 1: I hate capitalism.
Person 2: What? Why?
Person 1: It creates poverty and inequality.
Person 2: I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Aren’t those products of nature?
Person 1: Part of it is natural. But capitalism exacerbates it.
Person 2: You mean by allowing entrepreneurs to reap substantial monetary gains from the proper arrangement of the factors of production?
Person 1: What? No. I’m talking about the collusion between the big banks and the federal government to manipulate the money supply in favor of the wealthy.
I daresay that you’ve probably heard an argument like this before. But what Person 1 labels “capitalism” is what Person 2 (seemingly more economically literate) would call “corporatism.” And thus there is confusion between the two of them. They cannot fully convey their ideas to one another because their words don’t have the meanings they intend. Again, there’s nothing special about the words. But they must be defined before they are used so that the audience knows what concepts they actually refer to.
The same rule applies to assumptions one makes in the course of one’s argument. There’s nothing “wrong” with making assumptions in the course of your argument. Indeed, this is the method of science, to describe the effects of a change in one variable assuming that all other variables are held constant. Additionally, some knowledge is beyond our grasp, or at least beyond our field of study. One does not need to become an expert in all subjects in order to comment upon one of them, even though his comment may have implications for other subjects. It is permissible to assume a condition to be true, if you do not know for sure that it is true, for the purposes of setting forth your thoughts on a topic. However, this assumption must be made explicit, so that those who are in a position to determine its veracity may do so.
Without presenting one’s definitions and assumptions at the outset of an intellectual venture, it is impossible to accurately convey one’s thinking on a topic. It must, therefore, be a critical part of your project. Reflect upon your project, determine what concepts you’re grappling with, and define them. Reflect upon your project, determine what assumptions you’re operating under, and list them. Explain them, if you can. By doing so you improve dramatically the quality of your product, not only by adhering to a position of intellectual honesty, but by increasing the ability of your audience to understand the information you’re presenting.
No comments:
Post a Comment