A Taxonomy for the “Abuse of Definition” Zoo
I wrote of this before. This kind of arguing tactic is like abuse of notation in the name of being more precise, but instead of stopping strategic equivocation, you shut down all meaningful communication. Time to get precise about the different kinds and how to recognise them.
Stealing Words
I talk about love and you ask me to define what I mean by “love”. You give your own, reductive definition for ”love”. I cannot say “love“ any more, because now it doesn’t mean what I want to say.
Don’t play games with me, I say. You ask me to define “game”. Unfortunately, I don’t have either of Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga or Games People Play by Eric Berne handy, so I look it up in an encyclopedia, and only find definitions from sports, board games, logic (game semantics) and strategic game theory. I cannot say “game“ any more, because now it doesn’t mean what I want to say.
Too Many Small Concepts
I talk about feelings, and you ask me to distinguish between “affects”, “moods”, “qualia”, “emotions” and “sensory stimuli”. I throw my copy of Descartes’ Error at your face. This level of distinction doesn’t even make sense. Emotions cause body states, which cause sensory stimuli, which all together cause feelings.
I talk about the probability of rain tomorrow, and you ask me if this a “subjective probability”, “frequentist probability”, or a “propensity”. The math would be the same. The expected utility of carrying an umbrella is high.
I talk about what is good, or what is right, and you ask me to distinguish between “ethics”, “morals” and “utility”. For the rest of the conversation, I have to use a phrase like “moral AND ethical“ and I sound like Sam Harris.
I say I love you, and you ask me to decide between “storge“, “philia“, “amor“ and “agape“. Something got lost in translation here.
Loading Definitions
You tell me about toxic masculinity. You tell me that “toxic masculinity” is always bad. I ask about certain positive masculine traits. You tell me that these traits are not “toxic masculinity“. You explain that “toxic masculinity” is bad by definition.
Tunnel-Vision Prescriptivism
I want to talk about common ideas of “politics“. Not about politics, but about what people commonly mean or understand when they say “politics”. You ask me to define “politics”. That’s not my point at all. You give a definition of “politics”. Is that what other people understand when you say “politics“, I ask. Who cares what clueless people think about politics, you counter.
Making Words Unwieldly
You introduce a bunch of phrases like “being-in-itself“, “the feeling of emotion“, “sex-worker-excluding radical feminist” and insist I be precise and always use the long form.
(from https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/post/173889994273/a-taxonomy-for-the-abuse-of-definition-zoo (archived) )