on 5/10/02 4:27 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:38 PM > Subject: Re: Definitions, Hey Julia > > > >>> OK, so you did, sorry I missed it. >> >> You wouldn't need to be apologising if you just read a little more > carefully >> :) > > Well, I make mistakes and I admit it. I am self confindent enough to think > that I've got a decent enough reputation to be able to survive a mistake or > two. > > >> >>> I've got another question for you. >>> >>> Do you consider OED authorative? >> >> Yes and no. Yes I do, but not in the sense I suspect you mean. > Dictionaries >> are descriptive rather than prescriptive: that is they describe how words >> *are* used not how words *ought* to be used. > > And what decides "ought?" My impression, which may be wrong, is that the > right definition of a word is the one that fits your arguement. Let me > quote an early post from you in that manner:
Well, that is exactly the impression I get of you! Isn't that funny! > > "ROTFLMAO! That is a hoot Dan. You are a real comedian! You are the one > trying to redefine words to suit yourself. I am just referring to standard > encyclopaedias and dictionaries to clear up the confusion you are trying to > spread." > > I then proceeded to give numerous quotes from dictionaries, giving my > meaning as the primary meaning. The meaning that you appeared to give as > the primary meaning was sorta there if you squinted in the interpretation > of latter definitions. I realize that you quoted an encylcopedia, later, > and I will get to that in a bit. I didn't respond right away, because I > was not impressed with the free online dictionary one gets with a cheap > computer as authorative. But, since you gave origional sources, I'll > adress that. My point is that the meaning(s) of a word is the union, not an intersection, of all the usages of the word. You want to exclude the definitions that don't suit you. > > My point in the above is that you mocked me as giving twisted definitions > of a word, when I gave the first or second definition in most dictionaries. > Your definition is an streach of even your source, IMHO. > But the different definitions reflect different contexts, not different degrees of validity. And the definition isn't a stretch at all - it *is* the definition as given by two different theologians in two different encyclopaedias. Nothing stretchy at all about that. If there is anything stretchy going on it is your sophistry in trying to exclude definitions that don't suit you. Also you appear to have misread me (and here I'll freely admit that what I wrote wasn't clear enough not to be innocently misinterpreted): I was making two separate points; 1) About the definition of religion And 2) That that definition fits some systems of belief not usually considered to be religion. > >> Additionally they are inclusive rather than exclusive: if a usage is in > a dictionary that >> means that some people have used the word that way, but if a usage is not > in a dictionary >> that does not mean that the word has not been used that way by some > people. > > But, you interjected yourself into a threat to correct_ my use of the word > religion. Am I really out of line when I use a primary dictionary > definition of a word? Yes. Since you are attempting to use a definition from one context to support an argument in a different context. > If you were a theologian, and wanted to give a more > technical definition, I might accept that. But, IIRC, we have > approximately the same amount of education in philosophy, (BA and some > graduate work, but no MA or PhD) and I dare say I've studied a bit more > theology than you. So, why do you feel justified in mocking me for using > the primary definition. The argument was about theology, a subject you have studied more than me I'm sure. The definitions I gave were by professional theologians who have studied the subject more than either of us, and you are objecting because these definitions don't suit your agenda. > >>> >> I like neologisms. >> >>> >>> Do you argue with the etomology of anti-Semetic? >> >> Etymology isn't about the use of words, but about their derivation. > > or development, as I've seen it defined. And that was given by Adam, IIRC. > The word was deliberately coined to describe anti-Jewish attitudes. > >> Arguing about the etymology of a word is best left to philologists. An > example >> (maybe not a brilliant one) of etymology and use diverging is the current >> popular usage of 'decimate'. > > Right. And anti-Semitism is another. But, in one case, it is quite > acceptable to you; and in the other its "not proper." Where did I say anything about it being not proper? I didn't. > Why is it OK to > describe killing off the majority as decimating a population (instead of > killing 10%, while it is not OK to define anti-Semetic as opposed to the > Jews. Both of these usages are OK. It is also OK to use decimate to mean 'kill off 1 in 10' and anti-Semitic to mean 'anti-Arab'. How many people would understand what one meant in either case is a different issue... :) >> >> How could the dictionary definition of the word be more useful for a > serious >> discussion of the subject than the more detailed and expert definitions > of >> two professional theologians? [That I provided earlier.][1] > > Well, there are several answers to that. First, I've had discussions with > a number of theologins also; and have never gotten a hint that they > considered Marxism and Objectivism religions. Further, it is not at all > clear that these authors would have agreed with your definition. I read it > a bit differently. > I'll agree that these folks would argue that there can be atheistic religions; Some progress anyway... > but I have a hunch they are in the minority with that opinion. I have a hunch your hunch is wrong. But even if it isn't I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - that minority opinions can be disregarded? That the truth is whatever is most popular? > > My daughter is a seminarian at Columbia seminary. Its a pretty well known > seminary in the states. She considers it better than Yale and Princeton, > turning down a very good scholarship at Yale to go there. (I know this may > sound like bragging on my kid, but I'm only doing it to establish > Columbia's reputation). It has two well noted theologians that she is > taking classes from: Walter Brueggemann and Shirley C. Guthrie. I did > searches on your two and her two and got many more hits on Amy's > professors...a few vs. scores. So, I think her professors would qualify as > well known theologians. But could your theologians beat my theologians at arm wrestling? > > If I ask her about Marxism and Objectivism as religions, would you consider > that authorative? If I could persuade her to ask them, which she might not > feel comfortable doing 'cause she just started, would you consider that > authorative? And if you persuaded her to ask them if religions could be atheistic would you consider that answer authoritative? -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
