• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is there any usefulness in ambiguous terms?

Raw Evil

Raw Evil

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
1,832
Location
Akasha
I don't think so.

In any situation where an ambiguous or ill-defined term like "natural" is used, there should be a more specific term available to denote the property in question.

The use of such ambiguous terms serves no logical purpose - since there is no concrete definition of "natural", what exactly does it communicate apart from some vague reference to (and implicit approval of) reverence of poorly-understood processes observed in Earth's life forms? If there is a point to be made, make it yourself, make it clear, and make it understood.

Such misuse of language is doing a disservice to those who recognise the utility of language.
 
I believe there can be usefulness in ambiguity (ambiguity & ill defined terms are not necessarily the same thing) inasmuch as they can cause people to rethink, however the overuse of ambiguity isn't helpful. I find literary ambiguity fascinating TBH.
 
Well the ambiguity I'm pretty sure the OP is talking about isn't of the literary kind, then again he was ambiguous as to what exactly he meant, therefore making his own point for him. ;)
Literary ambiguity has nothing to do with ill defined terms in an argument.
Ambiguity in an argument is totally useless, and literally meaningless.
 
I have no problem with metaphors / analogies and their use in a literary context.

My beef is with those who would claim something to be superior because it is "natural", "holy" or "positive" and then fail to provide a concrete definition for the criteria of those attributes. Drawing a distinction between objects based on these imaginary rules does not help anyone.

This is all more relevant to the "is technology unnatural" thread but I'm pretty sure it would have been called off-topic had I posted this there in rebuttal.
 
That would depend on the person and the argument being made. If both parties are arguing through logic, then a lack of clarity won't really help.
 
You may as well question the existence of synonyms.

They serve a purpose, I can assure of that.



Certain terms like "natural" as you mentioned have been used to the point of being irrelevant, so I agree with you that certain synonyms have outlived there usefulness to us at this point. Whether that means we should discard them, that seems to me another argument.

I'd rather fight against euphemisms, if anything.

Obscure, Vague, Ambiguous, these are still direct. You know what I'm referring to when I use them to describe....

Sometime during my life, toilet paper became bathroom tissue. I wasn't notified of this. No one asked me if I agreed with it. It just happened. Toilet paper became bathroom tissue. Sneakers became running shoes. False teeth became dental appliances. Medicine became medication. Information became directory assistance. The dump became the landfill. Car crashes became automobile accidents. Partly cloudy bacame partly sunny. Motels became motor lodges. House trailers became mobile homes. Used cars became previously owned transportation. Room service became guest-room dining. And constipation became occasional irregularity. When I was a little kid, if I got sick they wanted me to go to the hospital and see a doctor. Now they want me to go to a health maintenance organization...or a wellness center to consult a healthcare delivery professional. Poor people used to live in slums. Now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities. And they're broke! They're broke! They don't have a negative cash-flow position. They're fucking broke! Cause a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area, so many people are no longer viable members of the workforce.
Click to expand...
 
Also Raw Evil, you could've easily gotten away with postin this in whatever thread you wanted because if something in an argument is unclear and ill-defined, it's the person using such terms that has the obligation to define what they mean for all those involved in the discussion. I'm always going "what do you mean by [insert thing here]" when I'm arguing with people because if I don't know what they mean than my responses are equally meaningless.
 
Can anyone give a concrete definition of "alive", "intelligent", "true", or "love"? That these terms are useful is so obvious to me that I cannot really engage in an argument over it. The ambiguity of natural language (but wait! any language that exists is natural! "natural language" is therefore a redundant useless term...oh, wait, you understood what I meant) can sometimes be problematic, yes. However, as long as all interlocutors understand the sense in which a particular term is being used, there's no problem. Natural language is, in fact, almost always ambiguous. It's pretty useful.
 
Alive: Something which exhibits all the characteristics of life: locomotion, reproduction, respiration, metabolism, etc.
Intelligent: someone with a sufficiently high IQ
True: something that is established by consensus and/or logic
Love: Compassionate attachment to someone who's presence you enjoy being around

Of course, there are many different possible definitions and connotations, but if you say these were "the" definitions to these words, and everyone understands as much, you could proceed to have a meaningful discussion with someone using those words. Obviously the same word can have different meanings in different discussions and inquiries, but the function of the word should be well established in everyone's minds. I'm not saying that you need to dissect every word or phrase you use obviously some assumptions can be made.
I'm not talking about just casual conversation, in which case I don't worry about the precision of my speech at all, I'm talking about a debate where two people could be talking in circles, making perfect sense to some, and sounding crazy to others, if they don't have well defined terms.
This is why Hume laid an attack on the very foundations of religious philosophy by having them define the terms "idea" (as used by Descartes in his Meditations that attempted to prove the existence of god logically) , "god", "omniscient" and so on. Just by simply applying the simple methodology of saying "what do you mean by "such and such"? he shook religious foundations to it's core and allowed Western Philosophy to progress and flourish, eventually spawning the natural sciences, or at least greatly contributing to their spawning.

TL;DR Ambiguity may serve some purpose, but clarity is much more useful ;)
 
Last edited:
sssssssssss said:
well if you dont want to think for yourself then no.
Click to expand...

If you have something to say, say it. I think I see where you're going with this but theres no sense guessing if you already know. Why not just tell me directly?

Vader said:
Can anyone give a concrete definition of "alive", "intelligent", "true", or "love"? That these terms are useful is so obvious to me that I cannot really engage in an argument over it.
Click to expand...

I rarely use any of those words, because they don't have concrete definitions. It is far from obvious to me why anyone should bother using them when a particular phenomenon could be more precisely described.

Vader said:
However, as long as all interlocutors understand the sense in which a particular term is being used, there's no problem.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that anything that's not a pronoun should be used in the least-context-sensitive manner possible. If you have an idea to communicate, describe it fully. Leaving room for interpretation only introduces error.

Vader said:
Natural language is, in fact, almost always ambiguous. It's pretty useful.
Click to expand...

If this is so, then I implore you to explain the existence / (perceived) necessity of "legalese".
 
If you have something to say, say it. I think I see where you're going with this but theres no sense guessing if you already know. Why not just tell me directly?
Click to expand...

because you wont learn anything unless you figure it out yourself. I'm just suggesting that you do. If i tell you and you memorize what i have to say, most likely youll disregard it because you dont understand the importance of it.

do you have an example of poor use of language? because im not quite sure what exactly youre talking about.
If youre just beginning a relationship i believe ambiguity is key.. how boring would life be if there were no surprises or suspense, the adventure is sometimes more fun than the destination

i guess im talking about terms as in rules and regulations
and ur talking about terms as in the diction used in arguments.
 
Last edited:
Sadly but truly you can get more with being ambiguous then being clear. Some call this persuasion and others manipulation. Either way its an art of those who recognize the utility of language, and also the psychology of humans.

also being to clear can sometimes get u hurt. Ambiguity always has its uses.
 
Last edited:
metaphores are sometimes more powerful than actuality
hyperboles, personification, similes.. should we not use those either?
 
sssssssssss said:
because you wont learn anything unless you figure it out yourself. I'm just suggesting that you do. If i tell you and you memorize what i have to say, most likely youll disregard it because you dont understand the importance of it.
Click to expand...

You just said that and I understood it perfectly. It's the same reason that hands-on learning is so much more effective; its why we teach chemistry through getting students to run their own experiments; it's why they build stuff in shop class.

See? Words. Clarity. Concrete meaning.

...and the utter uselessness thereof.

Fuck.
 
I guess that kind of explains why I'm awful at teaching people stuff - I don't teach so much as just tell them the what, why and how.

Maybe I need to just explain the "what", and let them fuck up and figure out the rest on their own. For the record, I hate watching others suck at things; it reminds me too much of the pain of my own failures. It doesn't hurt when someone explains stuff to me and I follow their instructions. Hence, I try to prevent others from needless (in my limited perception) suffering. But in doing so, do I shield them from learning on their own?

Perhaps such misery is indeed necessary.

If so, I have done a terrible disservice to those around me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top