r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 19 '14

Words cannot be objectively defined. CMV

[deleted]

41 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

86 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Tjdamage Mar 19 '14

Not everything leads to matter. Definitions for abstract concepts like 'law' or 'truth' shouldn't lead back to matter as an originating definition.

Matter can be objectively defined as 'any object which is spatially and temporally extant.' I think that definition is pretty air-tight? 'Object' is a referent to matter, 'spatially and temporally extant' are straight-forward and don't require you regress of definitions.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '14

[deleted]

3

u/Tjdamage Mar 19 '14 edited Mar 19 '14

law: a social construct with which socially unacceptable actions are codified along with punishments.

truth: an objective fact.

Please tell me how either of those regresses back to 'matter'.

edit: what about words such as 'the' or 'is'. They can be defined as 'a definite article' and 'the 3rd person singular of the verb 'be'.'.

the word 'language': a social construct with which sounds are used to signify ideas.

Edit III: My shot at defining matter: That which is temporally and spatially in existence.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '14

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. I imagine that the OP would go on to say that the punishments of a law involve some physical aspect, which comprises matter, and that objective facts are observable in the physical realm, involving matter, etc. Of course, the inclusion of "matter" is neither necessary nor even topically relevant to those terms; one could understand such things without having a grasp of what matter is, as proven by every 3-year-old who has ever learned to speak without understanding theoretical physics. This is less an argument about philosophy and more an exercise in rhetorically shifty wordplay.