Definitions

[popcornfrenzy]

I wanna that if there is no concrete definition or widely agreed upon definition of an abstract concept then what do you do with those that are given by various philosophers throughout time. Do you choose which one to use? For example the terms Philosophy, Environment, Love, Justice, and Equality. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work in a way like "Oh I think I'll use Plato's definition of Philosophy cause I want to," which in this case is very arbitrary? In a way, it kinda led me to the question of what is real and what is not for all these concepts which only made me more confused. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by popcornfrenzy

[studiot]

6 hours ago, popcornfrenzy said:

I wanna that if there is no concrete definition or widely agreed upon definition of an abstract concept then what do you do with those that are given by various philosophers throughout time. Do you choose which one to use? For example the terms Philosophy, Environment, Love, Justice, and Equality. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work in a way like "Oh I think I'll use Plato's definition of Philosophy cause I want to," which in this case is very arbitrary? In a way, it kinda led me to the question of what is real and what is not for all these concepts which only made me more confused. 

You seem to be wanna-ing ? the aspects of philosophy that are not really amenable to scientific analysis.

Remember this is a scientific site and we are supposed to be discussing the scientific aspects in subjects that are not directly scientific.

You might be better off asking for these in an arts forum for instance, take Love.

In Suits there are many scenes where the 'love' Donna has for Harvey is explored.

In one she says " I don't love him like that , I love him like a brother"

 

So remember many words do multiple duties so it is a good idea to specify which one you mean at the outset of any serious work.

Edited August 6, 2023 by studiot
spelling

[Genady]

6 hours ago, popcornfrenzy said:

Do you choose which one to use?

Yes. The choice depends on the intended use. For example, when discussing 'force' in physics and in politics, different definitions of the term 'force' are used.

[npts2020]

11 hours ago, popcornfrenzy said:

I wanna that if there is no concrete definition or widely agreed upon definition of an abstract concept then what do you do with those that are given by various philosophers throughout time. Do you choose which one to use? For example the terms Philosophy, Environment, Love, Justice, and Equality. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work in a way like "Oh I think I'll use Plato's definition of Philosophy cause I want to," which in this case is very arbitrary? In a way, it kinda led me to the question of what is real and what is not for all these concepts which only made me more confused. 

Language can be as precise or ambiguous as you choose. Science generally has pretty universally well defined definitions for terms used and where there isn't agreement the narrator should define the terms in context of their narrative. One reason scientists (especially in the same field) seem to understand each other very well. Politicians, on the other hand, like ambiguity...

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Language can be as precise or ambiguous as you choose. Science generally has pretty universally well defined definitions for terms used and where there isn't agreement the narrator should define the terms in context of their narrative. One reason scientists (especially in the same field) seem to understand each other very well. Politicians, on the other hand, like ambiguity...

I wish.

Unless, by using  the plural of definition you mean that science has multiple meanings for many important words and concepts.

 

[MSC]

Three resources;

The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, available online.

The Oxford and Cambridge Philosophical dictionaries. Also online I believe.

If you happen to live in Boston, the Boston public library has them and I imagine most libraries can get a hold of them anyway... It's also one of my favourite buildings and is just a really awesome place. Just one thing to keep in mind, it has kind of an old layout. The psychology section is actually a subsection within the philosophy section, an organizational relic of a time when psychology was still just a branch of philosophy and had not yet become a fully fledged scientific inquiry. 

But yeah, stay away from strict singular definitions, language is fluid, check out Wittgenstein and good luck. Enjoy!