It’s not novel, the core idea is at least a century old.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
The objections you keep making are that alternative suggestions are meaningless given your definition of meaningful. In other words, that they are wrong because you are right. That alternative accounts are wrong because they are different to the one true account.
To make progress you need a way of engaging that isn’t question-begging.
No, I’ve objected that the alternative definitions are circular, and assume the coherency as part of the definition. That is a valid critique even without assuming that it’s incoherent from the outset.
It’s not novel, the core idea is at least a century old.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
Which is very young compared to the total history of philosophy and fairly young compared to modern linguistics.
The objections you keep making are that alternative suggestions are meaningless given your definition of meaningful. In other words, that they are wrong because you are right. That alternative accounts are wrong because they are different to the one true account.
To make progress you need a way of engaging that isn’t question-begging.
No, I’ve objected that the alternative definitions are circular, and assume the coherency as part of the definition. That is a valid critique even without assuming that it’s incoherent from the outset.