The meaning of words

I recently came across Alan Lightman’s writings. His following essay particularly hit me hard like lightening. I am not sure where is the best place to post it, subforums for science? art? or writing? So I post it here at General Forum. It is published in a special “Words” column in Nature in 2001.

________________

Words
Nature 413, 681 (2001)
© Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

In the name of love?

ALAN LIGHTMAN Alan Lightman is adjunct professor of humanities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of Einstein's Dreams and The Diagnosis. Adapted from "The physicist as novelist" in The Future of Spacetime, edited by Richard H. Price (W. W. Norton, New York, in the press).

By defining ideas precisely, as science does, fiction would deny its readers freedom of interpretation.

During my career I have had the privilege of working both as a physicist and as a novelist. As a member of both of these communities, I've been fascinated by the different ways in which they work, the different ways in which they think, and their different approaches to truth.

One important distinction that can be made between physicists and novelists, and between the scientific and artistic communities in general, is in what I shall call 'naming'. Roughly speaking, the scientist tries to name things and the artist tries to avoid naming things.

To name a thing, one needs to have gathered it, distilled and purified it, and attempted to identify it with clarity and precision. Consider, for example, the word 'electron'. As far as we know, all of the zillions of electrons in the Universe are identical. There is only a single kind of electron. And to a modern physicist, the word 'electron' represents a particular equation — the Dirac equation with field operators.

That equation summarizes, in precise mathematical and quantitative terms, everything we know about electrons — every interaction, the precise deflections and twists of electrons by particular magnetic and electric fields, the tiny effects of electrons and their antiparticles materializing out of nothing and then disappearing again. In a real sense, the name 'electron' refers to the Dirac equation. For scientists, it is a great comfort, a feeling of power, a sense of control, to be able to name things in this way.

The objects and concepts with which the novelist is concerned cannot be named. The novelist might use the words 'love' and 'fear', but these names do not summarize or convey much to the reader. For one thing, there are a thousand different kinds of love. There's the love you feel for a mother who writes to you every day during your first month away from home, and the love you feel for a mother who, when you stumble into the house drunk after driving home from the prom, slaps you and then embraces you. There's the love you feel for a man or a woman you've just made love to, and there's the love you feel for a friend who calls to give you support after you've just split up with your spouse. But it's not just the fact that there are so many different kinds of love that prevent the novelist from truly naming the thing. It's also the fact that the idea of love — the particular sensation out of the thousands of different kinds of love — must be shown to the reader not by naming it, but through the actions of the characters.

If love is shown, rather than named, each reader will experience it and, what's more, will understand it in his or her own way. Each reader will draw on their own adventures and misadventures with love. Every electron is identical, but every love is different.

The novelist doesn't want to eliminate these differences, doesn't want to clarify and distil the meaning of love so that there is only a single meaning, like the Dirac equation, because no such distillation could represent love. Any attempt at such a distillation would undermine the authenticity of readers' reactions, destroying the delicate, participatory creative experience of a good reader reading a good book. In a sense, a novel is not complete until it has been read. And each reader completes the novel in a different way.

I'll give another illustration of the difference between naming and not naming. Let me represent science by expository writing. Like science, a piece of expository writing takes a reductionist and reasoned approach to the world. You have a position or argument, you structure this argument in logical steps, amassing facts and evidence to convince your reader of each assertion. We all learn that in expository writing it is useful to begin each paragraph with a topic sentence. A topic sentence, in effect, states the idea of the paragraph at the outset. You thus begin by telling your reader what he or she is going to learn in the paragraph and how to organize his or her thoughts so as to gain as ordered and structured an understanding as possible.

But in fiction, a topic sentence is usually fatal, because the power of fiction is emotional and sensual. You want your reader to feel what you're saying, to smell it and hear it, to be part of the scene you are creating. You want your reader to be blind-sided, to let go and be carried off to a magical place. Every reader will travel differently, depending on his or her own experiences of life. With a topic sentence, you don't leave room for your reader's own imagination and creativity to be engaged as the paragraph unfolds. The difference can be stated in terms of the body. In expository writing, you want to get to your reader's brain. In creative writing, you want to bypass the brain and go straight for the stomach or the heart.

Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2001 Registered No. 785998 England.

____________________________

In the past, I’ve been accused of interpreting words too literally. As a narrow minded scientist, I willingly plea guilty to that charge. However, I have in the past encountered a few outrageous people and found myself capable of interpreting their outrageous languages in a completely different way. Human communication is often such a holistic process, and words by themselves are just not adequate for it.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/15, 7:43am)

Post 1

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:42pm

Thank you for posting that. Meaning is certainly central to
philosophy, so I'd suppose it quite appropriate here.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with a couple of implications of his right off:

He wrote:

The objects and concepts with which the novelist is concerned cannot be named.

-and-

By defining ideas precisely, as science does, fiction would deny its readers freedom of interpretation.

First, novelists do name things, all the time. We don't always use single words to name things, but the SPACES between words are an arbitrary convention. (German proves that assertion.)

"A single wilted, bug-eaten red rose" is the name of something as surely as singlewiltedbugeatenredrose--albeit easier on the eyes.

How do we know we're naming something? Because MOST readers will not read that and envision a sausage, or an airplane, or Harpo Marx. They will envision a certain kind of flower with certain properties--how red, wilted and bug-eaten, how large, how many petals, etc., are the sort of things novelists allow readers to fill in.

Second, it's not possible to use words to define ideas precisely. I defy anyone to write a single page of fiction which can "define ideas precisely." By precise, I mean free from any possibility of multiple interpretations.

It simply cannot be done. Language is INHERENTLY a tool loaded with ambiguity. Even a single adjective will be experienced differently by some readers.

If we doubt that, let us examine philosophical discussions where people are TRYING to be precise. On SOLO, for example, Jordan and I had an extended discussion of the various connotations of "physical" as opposed to "substance."

That said, I agree that to worry too much about relative precision and extreme clarity can suck the life out of writing, can make it stilted and mechanical.

Better a good writer trust most readers to draw the most likely intended meaning from his or her words. Good writers, those with an ear tuned to the language, will achieve that.

The operative word is MOST. The writer who can achieve that in all cases has yet to be born. I agree with what I believe the writer intended to say, even if a couple of his statements were misbegotten. Which probably proves somebody's point.

Nathan Hawking

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 5/15, 8:12pm)

Post 2

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:28pm

Hi Nathan,

Yes, I would think the precision of wordings in philosophy would fall somewhere between natural sciences and fiction, hopefully closer to science than fiction.

Of course novelists naming things, but the implications of such namings or phrases can be very different for different people, unlike a definition word in science. Take “a single wilted, bug-eaten red rose” for example, what is it that the author tries to convey through such an image? what kind of mood it would put the readers in? These can all be very different.

When we try to exchange ideas on an internet forum, words are the only mean of communication since many of us don’t know each other at all in real life, and there is often no other context. Yes, sometimes ideas do get across from one to another. Mostly. However, I think we should keep in mind that to assume others to have the exact same understanding of certain concepts, such as “physical” or “substance” of your examples, often turn out not to be true.

In more general human communications, there are even cases where simple word such as “bad” could actually mean “good”, and “good” mean “bad”, depending on context. And that’s what really fascinates me.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/15, 9:32pm)

Post 3

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 2:06am

Hong:

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I would think the precision of wordings in philosophy would fall somewhere between natural sciences and fiction, hopefully closer to science than fiction.

Of course novelists naming things, but the implications of such namings or phrases can be very different for different people, unlike a definition word in science. Take “a single wilted, bug-eaten red rose” for example, what is it that the author tries to convey through such an image? what kind of mood it would put the readers in? These can all be very different.

I liken communicating with readers through fiction to throwing large handfuls of darts at a wall covered with dartboards.

Good writers will land lots of darts on boards. Many darts from inept writers end up on the floor.

I once used a phrase in a story, a rather common phrase in the US. It turned out that many non-US readers did not get from the expression the sense I intended, while most Americans did.

Words have all kinds of flavors and shades writers must be aware of, and they vary from person to person.

When we try to exchange ideas on an internet forum, words are the only mean of communication since many of us don’t know each other at all in real life, and there is often no other context. Yes, sometimes ideas do get across from one to another. Mostly. However, I think we should keep in mind that to assume others to have the exact same understanding of certain concepts, such as “physical” or “substance” of your examples, often turn out not to be true.

In more general human communications, there are even cases where simple word such as “bad” could actually mean “good”, and “good” mean “bad”, depending on context. And that’s what really fascinates me.

Hong

Language can be a real circus.

Nathan

Post 4

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 11:08am

Hong,

I agree that communication is difficult sometimes with people. I also tend to take things very literally that people say and have been faulted for it. I do, however, like literature very much, stories, novels, poems. But when reading for understanding something scientific or philosophical I like the writer to tell me their point right away, then make their argument, then summarize and tie things together. It seems to me, if they really want me to understand, that is, they have good will towards their gentle reader, they will write as clearly as possible and not expect me to be able to "nuance" their meaning or try to convince me purely through force of personality. I also don't like to wade through the personal indiosyncrasies of some writers, i.e. misspelling on purpose, no punctuation, no capitals, really large, really small type, etc. I find that distracting and takes away from the point rather than making it. We have vastly different experiences in life and to find commonality in writing I appreciate as straightforward a writing style as possible. For very complicated subjects I realize that there must be lots of notes and references which will enable me if interested enough in the subject to eventually find the true context of the author and reach understanding of his writings.

Thanks for this article. I find your writing to be very straightforward and understandable and I appreciate your point of view very much.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 5/16, 11:09am)

Post 5

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:19pm

Mike,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your input very much too.

...when reading for understanding something scientific or philosophical I like the writer to tell me their point right away, then make their argument, then summarize and tie things together.

That's exactly how scientific writing should be like.

I think I sometime can even wade through an unfavorite style of a writer - IF they do have a good point, and if I am interested enough. It can also happen that somebody writes beautifully, but in the end really doesn't have much to say. I always come away kind of disappointed in such case.

You are absolutely right that goodwill on both the writer and reader's parts are important for effective communication. When I just came to the US, my English was pretty bad and my pronunciations were all wrong. I could only have survived because of the goodwills of the people whom I interacted with. They somehow were able to understand very well what I meant based on the scattered words that I managed to produce. I'll never forget that.

Hong

Post 6

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:09am

Hong,

I can almost see this turning into a thread on the Writing Forum. As a precise writer, as a fiction writer and songwriter (poet), and as a translator, I am particularly attuned to nuance and meaning. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you on this.

All words have a basic common technical meaning. You find it in the dictionary and the word simply means what it means. The noun chair is a good example (first definition). I cannot imagine different meanings or nuances for "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person" (Merriam Webster). I see no ambiguity there. I see precision of putting a name on an article that is in common or universal human experience.

But there are other contents and contexts to words, just as there are to the human experience. Briefly:

There is an emotional content to a word in addition to a technical definition. Words not only convey thoughts, they convey emotions - and some very technical and mundane words can be used to provide the most surprisingly atypical emotions.

I once had a college professor who loved to give an example for this: he would hold out an egg and say, "This is an egg." Then he would hold it up high in the air, look reverently at it and say, "What an egg!" This seems to get to the core of what Lightman was saying. Except that I would not just call it "naming things." I see it more like how dictionaries define words, Definition 1 (a and b), Definition 2, etc. In one definition, only the conceptual technical information is required. In another, an emotional content is also used. This is an area for reams of discussion. But there are two more considerations.

There is a noise factor in words, and even image factor. Poets use this all the time. "S" is a very good sound for adding to a relaxing soothing effect. For example, "silently, the shadow's still presence slowly darkened the room. "P" for explosive bombastic effect. "My promise to the people on this particular public forum is that we shall persist until we have prevailed!"

(Don't forget to clean the microphone before the next speaker too!)

Those two examples deal mildly with alliteration, but there are rhymes and other features, including the inherent sounds and shapes of the words themselves that automatically convey or "suggest" other aspects of our experience (loud noises, water running, grunting, etc.). A good writer will be sensitive to this, even a technical one so as to add interest and not be boring.

Then there is a side that I know you are aware of, but very few who know only one language are. A friend of mine once called it the "spirit of a language." For as much as you want to learn and be fluent in another language, nothing will replace having grown up in it, or having experienced that language's living culture for years. There is a cultural meaning to certain words.

You mentioned "bad" meaning "good." How can you really explain this to someone who has not lived through watching the black culture in America use slang as a tool for expressing and asserting what they call pride, but which is nothing more than a refusal to accept being denigrated for their color any longer? If people want to call them bad, then "bad" they will be, until they get to Michael Jackson "bad." And that will mean that they are competent, fantastic looking, impressive or generally good.

If you want a hilarious example of what happens when you remove the cultural meaning of a word, try explaining to a Brazilian that "you crazy motherfucker" can actually mean tender affection. They have no reference in their culture for this, so they stay with the technical definition, and the meaning does, er... kind of get ridiculous that way.

This whole discussion can go on and on - and it is fascinating to me. The important thing to say, however, is that using differing degrees of precision and vagueness of a language for different purposes (science or fiction) is not the whole story. There are also the extra-conceptual definitions and contents of the words and phrases themselves.

You don't need heavy emotion in describing an electron, but you do in talking about the myriad forms of love where shades of other emotions are present also. Precision and vagueness can be useful tools, but that is only a very small part of the arsenal of a good writer. A writer needs to know what he/she wants to say (including whether or not automatic associations, emotions and/or culture are part of that message), then choose how to say it. Precisely how to say it.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/17, 4:19pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:29pm

Have to say I tend to agree with you, Michael - as per example, the series of mine just posted... the most important section was the most ignored - part 2.... was it poor writing, or what, that the principleness of the idea of evolving just refused to get serious thought, while the nit-picking of non-essential detailing went ranting all over.....
[sigh]
But - poor excuse it be - am mostly an artist, and only reluctantly a writer....

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/17, 3:31pm)

Post 8

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 4:33pm

Michael:

Good post. Apparently there are more than a few writers here, so an occasional writing thread is a good thing.

A writer needs to know what he/she wants to say (including whether or not automatic associations, emotions and/or culture are part of that message), then chose how to say it. Precisely how to say it.

In one sense, I agree with your "precisely how to say it," and in another sense I disagree.

I agree with the notion of precision in writing this way:

Before I began to write, thesauruses seemed, in principle, a pretty good tool. As a writer, however, I was surprised to discovered that I almost never use them. The reason is that there is almost always ONE word and one word alone which is optimal for a given context. Thesauruses will give us similar-meaning words, and even synonyms, but it will not give us the full connotative flavor of each of the choices. As you suggest, that can only be culturally experienced.

I disagree with the notion of precision in writing in this respect:

Language is a cultural convention. We can select the dictionary-correct word, but unless we live in a monoculture, the flavor words convey, their connotation, is rarely universal.

Even if we could "precisely" define a word like "chair" as an abstract concept, that does not demonstrate a general precision in language. We do not communicate with single words, and language is about communication. If I say...

"... a simple cabin with plank floor, a rickety makeshift table, and a single chair leaning back in a corner."

...the image a reader gets will be very different from

"... an opulent room, lush with polished wood, brocade, and tapestry, a pungent fragrance of fresh oil protraiture hanging in the air, it was a space revolving around two chairs which faced each other."

A chair is a chair, and neither description specifies in the slightest what kind of chair. But I guarantee that most readers will see a different chair in each description, and that by writerly design.

Moreover, readers who see a simple wooden chair in the first description will envision all different kinds of wooden chairs. The only "precision" is that readers will see a chair and not a butterfly or a chicken.

Objectivists, I have noticed, tend to imagine in language a precision it cannot have, to idealize and romanticize it. They point to simple definitions of single words, ignoring the fact that communication almost always involves groups of words and their context.

Rather than belabor the imprecision of language theoretically, there is a simple test:

Write a short story and submit it to an open critique forum. If you're a great writer, most people will get most of what you mean most of the time. But that's as good as it gets.

Even a good writer will be surprised at some of the ways his or her words are perceived by some people--and they are not necessarily incorrect, for they're just hearing words with different flavors and getting different impressions.

Good writing is an exercise, not in precision, but in playing the statistics. The best writers have a good ear for how MOST people will hear things. This should not surprise us, as it is this variability and IMPRECISION which accounts for the fact that the "English" of a millenium ago is a foreign language--as is, for that matter, the English spoken in parts of England is essentially foreign to Americans.

One need not understand computer science to appreciate what is meant by 'the logic of language is fuzzy logic.'

Language is a blunt instrument: we can sharpen the edges, but it is at best a butter knife.

Nathan Hawking

Post 9

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:11pm

I can't find the quote, but I remember a quote by Michael Faraday, one of the great experimenters of science, said something like: if you can't write it down clearly, you don't understand it.

Perhaps it was in the "Five great equations" book. I can't find my copy laying around here anywhere.

Post 10

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:18pm

Nathan,

Why on earth did I have a premonition that you were about to disagree with me? //;-)

Let me be very clear. The photographic precision you blame words for not being able to achieve - thus we are doomed merely to varying degrees of vagueness - is not the same precision I talk about.

A word is nothing more than an audio and/or visual symbol for mental content. Since it is physically impossible for the consciousness of one human being to enter the brain of another (at least unless and until telepathy gets harnessed), there will never be precision in terms of conveying precise mental events to the extent and degree they occur at any point in time.

But that is not what words are meant to do. Initially they are symbols for sensations, percepts and concepts (here we go again!!!). That is why "chair" in English and cadeira in Portuguese mean precisely the same thing, i.e., "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person" (Merriam Webster), despite being very different words.

The mental image of a particular chair is not what this symbol was designed to mean. The concept was.

Words are designed for communication. Whenever something is communicated, a transfer of information takes place, but it occurs due to an impulse from the communicator. For the life of me, I cannot imagine an impulse of wanting to transmit the exact repetition of a mental event precisely as it occurred, just as I cannot imagine wanting to walk from one room to another by placing ones feet on precisely the same spots, down to the atom, as one did before. Life itself is dynamic. Change, however slight, is part of living from one moment to the next. Change is inherent to time.

This exact repetition of a mental event type of precision is not only excluded from words, it is excluded from human memory. Simply speaking, it does not exist.

So to say that all that is left over is vague is a mere play on words. Conceptual precision is very possible and even very precise. That is, once again, if you are talking about concepts and not frozen mental instances of time.

Once we move on to other types of content (emotions and culture, etc.), there is a wider variety, but the precision of understanding what love is, for example, is entirely within the realm of the precise. What will never be precise will be the conveyance of the exact mental event of love at a specific moment.

But, Nathan, you did touch on a cultural aspect that is important. Languages do change over time. The symbols get worn out and modified with different use. (See the example of "bad" meaning "good" in my previous post.) But notice that the concepts do not change (nor do emotions, etc.). For example, "chair" as a concept has remained the same ever since it was invented. It means precisely what it is supposed to mean and what it has always meant. The words for it have changed, but the concept has not.

Michael

Post 11

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 12:54am

Michael:

Why on earth did I have a premonition that you were about to disagree with me? //;-)

Because you're smart.

What do you expect when you contradict me? LOL I thought you wanted to play!

Let me be very clear. The photographic precision you blame words for not being able to achieve - thus we are doomed merely to varying degrees of vagueness - is not the same precision I talk about.

Blame? Come now, I never took you for a cup-half-empty kind of guy!

A word is nothing more than an audio and/or visual symbol for mental content. Since it is physically impossible for the consciousness of one human being to enter the brain of another (at least unless and until telepathy gets harnessed), there will never be precision in terms of conveying precise mental events to the extent and degree they occur at any point in time.

But that is not what words are meant to do. Initially they are symbols for sensations, percepts and concepts (here we go again!!!). That is why "chair" in English and cadeira in Portuguese mean precisely the same thing, i.e., "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person" (Merriam Webster), despite being very different words.

You can make that argument quite easily when you choose a word like "chair."

Can you be fair and give me nontrivial examples, words which have less precise meanings? I can think of thousands.

The mental image of a particular chair is not what this symbol was designed to mean. The concept was.

I'm afraid that's only partially true. I can program a computer to associate "chair" with "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one." Of course, then I have to associate each of "seat" and "four" and "legs" and "back" and "one" with other lists of words, and so on and so on. I have to associate the word "leg" not just with literal animal limbs but with the postlike objects to which they analogize.

Whats the point? This: Hierarchical lists of words are one thing, but they don't have much meaning for humans unless we can ultimately relate them to images, sounds, touch, body sense.

I agree that concepts are important, but human experience is far richer than word-associated concepts.

Words are designed for communication. Whenever something is communicated, a transfer of information takes place, but it occurs due to an impulse from the communicator. For the life of me, I cannot imagine an impulse of wanting to transmit the exact repetition of a mental event precisely as it occurred, just as I cannot imagine wanting to walk from one room to another by placing ones feet on precisely the same spots, down to the atom, as one did before. Life itself is dynamic. Change, however slight, is part of living from one moment to the next. Change is inherent to time.

This exact repetition of a mental event type of precision is not only excluded from words, it is excluded from human memory. Simply speaking, it does not exist.

I couldn't agree more. That is why verbal communication can only be called "precise" in relatively trivial senses of that word.

So to say that all that is left over is vague is a mere play on words.

Don't do dichotomy with me, Michael.

You know I said nothing about human communication being "vague" or "mere play on words."

What I said was that beyond the trivial, "precision," in the way you're implying it by defining something simple like a chair, is not possible.

Try defining something complex, like "man."

I'll warn you ahead of time, for everything you can think of as a defining characteristic, including rationality, it is either a) NOT unique to humankind, or b) dispensible, or c) a circular definition (e.g., 'of the species Homo sapiens').

Understand that I'm not denying that humans are distinct--I rarely confuse them with the great apes. I am saying that words don't seem to be the decisive tools you seem to be claiming they are.

Conceptual precision is very possible and even very precise. That is, once again, if you are talking about concepts and not frozen mental instances of time.

I will agree that with effort, a high degree of communicative precision is possible. But not as much as you seem to be claiming with simple definitions. I think that's misleading, and point to your inability to define with any precision a concept as ubiquitous as 'man.'

You may try, if you wish. How long do you think your list of defining characteristics will be?

Once we move on to other types of content (emotions and culture, etc.), there is a wider variety, but the precision of understanding what love is, for example, is entirely within the realm of the precise.

Yes, I suppose that's why the Merriam-Webster online has "24 entries found for 'love.'" LOL Michael, I think you should have stuck to chairs.

What will never be precise will be the conveyance of the exact mental event of love at a specific moment.

But that's exactly what novelists are trying to communicate, Michael!!

Any moron can write "He loved her intensely." And any moron will know that he felt "strong affection." That's as far as a dictionary definition CONCEPT will get us, and everything which can be said about love with a dictionary definition can be said in ONE novel. Imagine the savings in paper!

Novelists, we would hope, are trying to communicate something more, something different and personal. We would hope they are trying to communicate something we can't read in a dictionary--not just the CONCEPT of love, but the flavor of the way they wish us to experience it.

And that is imprecise art, not precise science.

But, Nathan, you did touch on a cultural aspect that is important. Languages do change over time. The symbols get worn out and modified with different use. (See the example of "bad" meaning "good" in my previous post.) But notice that the concepts do not change (nor do emotions, etc.). For example, "chair" as a concept has remained the same ever since it was invented. It means precisely what it is supposed to mean and what it has always meant. The words for it have changed, but the concept has not.

Yes, simple concepts are relatively clear and easy to communicate with relatively great precision.

Conan overheard from the other room: "Two horse trainers were arrested for giving racehorses Viagra. Police became suspicious when their horse won a close race and it wasn't by a nose."

Lots of relatively precise words in that joke, but the POINT cannot even be inferred from the literal meaning of the words.

Where is the precision in the communicated humor content there?

Nathan Hawking

Post 12

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:45am

Nathan,

We disagree is in scope.

I claim that words are only supposed to be symbols, and as symbols they are quite precise.

If, for example, you find the definition of "man" (I presume you mean human being) to be vague by definition, I suggest then that you will have a very hard time mating, since you will have no idea of how to precisely define and recognize a member of your own species.

So you better stay away from the monkey and gorilla cages at the zoo because these animals might be similar enough to confuse you. (Although there are some samples of our own species who seem to be ardently striving to achieve precisely that epistemological state...)

There recently was a very heated discussion on Solo because of the definition of "man." It was about the Terri Shaivo case, where most everyone agreed that she was no longer a human being in the exact sense of the term - so, yes, there is an exact sense of that term. If I state "rational animal" though, I can see you splitting hairs until kingdom come. (We did disagree back then - and a lot - over what to do with what was left of Ms. Shiavo.)

You state that words are limited - with the implication that vagueness is all we have, since precision is impossible. And that this is so because they cannot convey actual human experience.

That is not dichotomizing. That is a pretty logical conclusion from your own statement. Of course we will probably disagree all day and all night about this.

Once again, I state that words are not designed to convey an actual mental state. A novelist is most definitely NOT trying to do that, as you claimed. He/she is trying to present a selective description of an experience (real or imagined) to convey an implicit value judgment. That is what art is all about. (This holds true even for Naturalists.)

Have you read The Romantic Manifesto? There are some parts of it I find incomplete, and I even disagree with some things (like not including photography as an art form), but overall it lays a pretty solid foundation of what art is and why it is so necessary to human beings.

I will keep on claiming that words are extremely precise tools to convey what they are meant to convey, concepts, emotions and so forth. And I see that you will continue to say that they cannot convey the actual experience, so they are not precise.

btw - If "chair" is an easy concept, I guess it is pretty precise then..

I can only wonder at why anyone would want to work so hard at proving that vagueness in language is all we have.

Michael

Post 13

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 12:03pm

Michael:

We disagree is in scope.

I claim that words are only supposed to be symbols, and as symbols they are quite precise.

If by the former you mean "how precise," then that's probably true.

As for the latter, I suggested a simple way you can demonstrate that, but I'm predicting that you won't accept my challenge.

If, for example, you find the definition of "man" (I presume you mean human being) to be vague by definition, I suggest then that you will have a very hard time mating, since you will have no idea of how to precisely define and recognize a member of your own species.

So you better stay away from the monkey and gorilla cages at the zoo because these animals might be similar enough to confuse you. (Although there are some samples of our own species who seem to be ardently striving to achieve precisely that epistemological state...)

I expected that you would resort to humor rather than attempt an actual definition. I deliberately refrained from my usual 'I rarely date outside my own species' line because I expected that you might take that tack. LOL

There recently was a very heated discussion on Solo because of the definition of "man." It was about the Terri Shaivo case, where most everyone agreed that she was no longer a human being in the exact sense of the term - so, yes, there is an exact sense of that term.

Exact? Do tell, please.

As with chairs, more of us can agree on whether or not something is a human being or not when it consists of 300 cells or has the brain function of an earthworm.

But since you find "human" so easy to define precisely, please tell me a) at what point in development between a blastocyst and a 6 year-old child you would classify an entity as human, and b) the "precise" definition you are using.

I predict that you will be unable to do that. In my experience, those who have pretended that this is possible are simply bluffing and never quite get around to actually demonstrating.

If I state "rational animal" though, I can see you splitting hairs until kingdom come. (We did disagree back then - and a lot - over what to do with what was left of Ms. Shiavo.)

I find it strange, Michael, that when YOU insist upon defining terms it is sound intellectual discourse, but when others ask for definitions it is 'splitting hairs.'

I think you preemptively raise the 'splitting hairs' defense because you sense the insipid weakness of your only candidate for defining humanness.

And you're right, it is not a good definition, because some animals have more rationality than some humans--unless, of course, you wish to declare infants and the moderately brain-injured nonhumans and therefore candidates for pet food.

The fact that you're avoiding the argument with humor and preemption rather than presenting the list of characteristics which define "humans" should be telling you something.

You state that words are limited - with the implication that vagueness is all we have, since precision is impossible. And that this is so because they cannot convey actual human experience.

That is not dichotomizing. That is a pretty logical conclusion from your own statement. Of course we will probably disagree all day and all night about this.

I'll be blunt: your characterization of my position, "vague [or] mere play on words," is at best hyperbole, Michael.

Since you like [relative] precision, I'll be specific. I think many words and much human expression, put into numbers ONLY for the purposes of illustration, achieve an effective communication of 99.9% of our cognitive content. "Chair" might be an example of this. "Human," on the other hand, may be definable in many contexts with a 'precision' of only 30 or 50%.

If you deny the latter, then do tell us exactly, non-arbitrarily, when an embryo becomes a human being. The fact that you will be unable should tell you something.

Once again, I state that words are not designed to convey an actual mental state. A novelist is most definitely NOT trying to do that, as you claimed. He/she is trying to present a selective description of an experience (real or imagined) to convey an implicit value judgment. That is what art is all about. (This holds true even for Naturalists.)

We shall have to agree to disagree on this then.

Have you read The Romantic Manifesto? There are some parts of it I find incomplete, and I even disagree with some things (like not including photography as an art form), but overall it lays a pretty solid foundation of what art is and why it is so necessary to human beings.

I've read it. I find it a collection of the least compelling and most poorly-reasoned things Ayn Rand wrote. Her failure to include photography is merely a symptom of her flawed premises and sloppy conclusions--but being a fine-arts photographer at the time I first read this, it was particularly evident to me.

I will keep on claiming that words are extremely precise tools to convey what they are meant to convey, concepts, emotions and so forth.

I will accept your thesis when you can "precisely" define something as commensurable with our experience as "human."

Until you can, it seems only honest to recognize the limits of verbal conceptual thinking and language use.

This is not just an artistic issue, Michael. It has obvious ramifications in philosophy and ethics. That's why two of the contexts I raised above were ethical.

And I see that you will continue to say that they cannot convey the actual experience, so they are not precise.

Once again you overstate my position. I say that words convey an enormous amount of a writer's intent, and as a writer I can say this with some confidence. But my position is also that you overstate your case by implying a general "precision" of the sort we attain when saying "chair."

btw - If "chair" is an easy concept, I guess it is pretty precise then..

That's what I said. That's what makes it a straw man. Pick a harder example.

I can only wonder at why anyone would want to work so hard at proving that vagueness in language is all we have.

If we're going to indulge ad hominem speaking to motives, I can also rhetorically ask: Why would someone work so hard to deny the obvious limitations of language?

To address your curiosity about my motives: Truth and honesty.

I don't need 100% certitude in knowledge or 100% precision in language to be perfectly happy with my efficacy in thinking and communication. I've written this post, and I consider it to be lucid and well-reasoned, quite up to the task of expressing myself.

Reality is what it is, and reality doesn't care one bit whether I'm uncomfortable with uncertainty or imprecision, subtle or gross. If exhaustive certitude or precision is not attainable, so be it.

If reality had a message for the disillusioned, I suspect it would be: Get over it.

Nathan Hawking

Post 14

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 1:04pm

Nathan,

If you do not agree with me on how concepts are formed, how on earth are we going to agree on something like what "human" is? If I say rational animal, you do not think in terms of the concept. You want to talk about blastocysts and whatnot. Constructing the concept of what an animal is, for example, includes birth, growth and death in the concept, therefore you have your blastocysts, embryos and 6 year olds, because the concept "animal" is obtained according to a long chain of concepts and observations.

Since you have a problem with this manner of concept formation, I can see how you would never reach a precise concept of man. I can though. And it is very precise - not in the 30-50% range.

I even remember from another thread that your definition of "physical" and "non-physical" was that you could not define them. That is when I stopped talking back then.

But I will address your challenge. According to your system, which excludes building concepts from percepts, no precise concept of man can ever be attained. You win.

But according to mine, "rational animal" serves quite well and it is 100% precise. If more detail is needed at any specific moment, there is a long list of supporting concepts under this to get whatever details are needed.

Frankly I am surprised you can even arrive at some kind of concept of "chair" using your method (this is not meant offensively or in jest).

Obviously we will have no common ground for discussing what a novelist does if you do not accept that writing fiction is a "selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" or that a novel exhibits a sense of life or that there is a very real psychological need for selectively concretizing the abstract that art serves.

I am not uncomfortable with the vague when things are vague. I also am not uncomfortable with the precise. I am certainly not disillusioned, so insinuating that I am some of these things is useless.

But I am very uncomfortable with lack of truth (which, by the way, in my form of concept building already includes "honesty," without which truth cannot be known).

There is a delicate point I wish to touch on. These posts tend to get into "last-word-itis," so let me state for the record that I consider my post to be 100% precise and accurate. If you come out with another long post to it making the following kinds of "arguing with yourself" type affirmations:

I think you preemptively raise the 'splitting hairs' defense because you sense the insipid weakness of your only candidate for defining humanness.

And you're right, it is not a good definition...

I want to state here, instead of dragging this out and doing it later, that I do not agree and I am sure that I am right. Our premises are very different.

But I shall defer the last word to you. Go for it. Have a ball.

Michael

Post 15

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 11:12pm

Nathan:
>Language is a blunt instrument: we can sharpen the edges, but it is at best a butter knife.

Quite right. However, what Ayn Rand means by "precise" or "absolutely precise" or "exact" etc etc is simply what *everyone else* means by "roughly" or "approximately". So once you understand that, you'll find there is little point belabouring the issue further....;-)

This verbal switcheroo inevitably creates a great deal of underlying confusion in discussion, whether about language or anything else. Fortunately it can be demonstrated very simply. The example I boringly always use is from Ayn Rand herself:

(IOE, "Exact Measurement and Continuity")
>AR:... you can always be absolutely precise simply by saying, for instance: "Its length is no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters."

>Prof. E: And that's perfectly exact.

>AR: It's exact...

So: where you or I might say something's length was *approximately* between one and two millimeters, Ayn Rand would say it was *absolutely precisely* between one and two millimeters!! That's all it boils down to - a purely *verbal* difference.

Hopefully that will save you a bit of posting time on the topic...;-)

- Daniel

Post 16

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 5:52pm

Now, now, Daniel-- don't make me come back over there. :-P

You're pretty much right here, though-- Rand would never say that you could ever know the "exact" length of something, since there's always going to be error in measuring by virtue of the fact that your unit itself has length.

One little comment:

So: where you or I might say something's length was *approximately* between one and two millimeters, Ayn Rand would say it was *absolutely precisely* between one and two millimeters!! That's all it boils down to - a purely *verbal* difference.

I'm not sure that "absolutely precisely" was the best word choice for Rand here, but neither is such a measurement "approximately" between 1mm and 2mm-- it is between 1mm and 2mm. Approximately would mean that you aren't quite sure that's it's between 1mm and 2mm, when you must be certain in order for the measurement to be valid. This difference is quite precise and important. ;-)

It's a little like forming our dear old friend, the concept "red." It doesn't matter that one can't identify the exact shade-- can you tell the difference between a red ball and a blue one, that's all the concept "red" is supposed to take care of.

Nate T.

Post 17

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:11pm

Daniel:

>Language is a blunt instrument: we can sharpen the edges, but it is at best a butter knife.
Quite right. However, what Ayn Rand means by "precise" or "absolutely precise" or "exact" etc etc is simply what *everyone else* means by "roughly" or "approximately". So once you understand that, you'll find there is little point belabouring the issue further....;-)

Hmmm.

This verbal switcheroo inevitably creates a great deal of underlying confusion in discussion, whether about language or anything else. Fortunately it can be demonstrated very simply.

The example I boringly always use is from Ayn Rand herself:

(IOE, "Exact Measurement and Continuity")
>AR:... you can always be absolutely precise simply by saying, for instance: "Its length is no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters."

>Prof. E: And that's perfectly exact.

>AR: It's exact...

So: where you or I might say something's length was *approximately* between one and two millimeters, Ayn Rand would say it was *absolutely precisely* between one and two millimeters!! That's all it boils down to - a purely *verbal* difference.

Actually, Daniel, I rather agree with Rand that the statement is precise insofar as it excludes everything less than one millimeter and everything greater than two millimeters.

A team of engineers could design a critical jet engine part from that specification.

I consider this one of those cases I mentioned in my post where language fully and adequately conveys the intended concept. But to characterize all of language on the basis of examples like this is an unwarranted generalization.

I point again to the definition of human: Rand could not nail it down with any precision--her vague opinions on the US Supreme Court abortion decision demonstrated that--nor has, to my knowledge, any Objectivist since.

Hopefully that will save you a bit of posting time on the topic...;-)

LOL A lovely and noble thought. But this subject has ramifications which go beyond the nature of precision in writing fiction.

I believe it was flaws in her formulation of Objectivism, flaws which led directly to the notion of certitude and verbal-conceptual precision and indirectly to blunders like the abortion commentary criticizing the trimester decision and her position on homosexuality.

The way you will know this is true is that no Objectivist will sign onto this forum and give an indisputably precise definition of "the nature of Man." Not without trying to bluff it.

Why am I so sure? Simple. There is no "the" nature of man.

What does this mean for an ethics based on "the nature of man"?

As I see it, the answer to that will come as a shock to most of humanity, I think, let alone Objectivists. More to come.

Nathan Hawking

Post 18

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:08pm

Michael:

If you do not agree with me on how concepts are formed, how on earth are we going to agree on something like what "human" is?

We don't need to agree on how concepts are formed, Michael.

Either you demonstrate that you can define "human" with precision, or you don't. That's where the rubber meets the road in this discussion.

If I say rational animal, you do not think in terms of the concept.

Rational animal is a fairly clear concept. Unfortunately, it is far from definitive.

Some primates are more rational than some humans. Are chimps human but two-year-old children not?

You want to talk about blastocysts and whatnot. Constructing the concept of what an animal is, for example, includes birth, growth and death in the concept, therefore you have your blastocysts, embryos and 6 year olds, because the concept "animal" is obtained according to a long chain of concepts and observations.

That's nice. But where between beginning embryonic development and six years is the entity "human"?

You said you could define it precisely. I'm still waiting.

Since you have a problem with this manner of concept formation, I can see how you would never reach a precise concept of man. I can though. And it is very precise - not in the 30-50% range.

I'm still waiting.

Bluster and bluff: 'You can't form concepts, so you'll never understand.' LOL

I even remember from another thread that your definition of "physical" and "non-physical" was that you could not define them. That is when I stopped talking back then.

But I will address your challenge. According to your system, which excludes building concepts from percepts, no precise concept of man can ever be attained. You win.

I'm still waiting. I'm beginning to have my doubts.

You misrepresent my position. I said percepts were conceptual processes. I said that general certitude was not possible.

But according to mine, "rational animal" serves quite well and it is 100% precise. If more detail is needed at any specific moment, there is a long list of supporting concepts under this to get whatever details are needed.

I'm still waiting.

Where is your precise definition?

Frankly I am surprised you can even arrive at some kind of concept of "chair" using your method (this is not meant offensively or in jest).

I'm still waiting.

I granted relative precision on defining a chair, but so far you are just squirming off the hook when it comes to defining "human."

[Digression snipped.]

I am not uncomfortable with the vague when things are vague. I also am not uncomfortable with the precise. I am certainly not disillusioned, so insinuating that I am some of these things is useless.

But I am very uncomfortable with lack of truth (which, by the way, in my form of concept building already includes "honesty," without which truth cannot be known).

You're the one who raised motivations, aren't you? See why that isn't a good idea?

But I'm still waiting for that precise definition of "human."

Is it possible that the reason it is not forthcoming is that you can't do it?

I mean, we're being "honest" here...

There is a delicate point I wish to touch on. These posts tend to get into "last-word-itis," so let me state for the record that I consider my post to be 100% precise and accurate. If you come out with another long post to it making the following kinds of "arguing with yourself" type affirmations:
I think you preemptively raise the 'splitting hairs' defense because you sense the insipid weakness of your only candidate for defining humanness.

And you're right, it is not a good definition...

Maybe the best course would be for you to simply grant that others are as concerned with the details of THEIR arguments as you are with YOURS. This 'hair-splitting' accusation is simply a tacit way of denigrating the motives and methods of others.

I want to state here, instead of dragging this out and doing it later, that I do not agree and I am sure that I am right. Our premises are very different.

Michael, the PROOF you are right would be that precise definition of "human."

Our "premises" be damned in this case.

I didn't need to know your premises when you defined, with relative precision, "chair." I don't need your premises, nor does anyone else reading this thread, to know whether or not you have actually precisely defined "human."

Face it, you haven't even offered a CLUE as to "precisely" when an embryo becomes a bone fide human being.

Now if *I* was in that position, and I was at one time, I'd be asking myself what was wrong with MY premises. But maybe that's just little old me.

Nathan Hawking

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 5/18, 7:20pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:09pm