kropotkinbeard:
Why would it be “my problem” simply because I don’t like hearing someone using a word incorrectly?
Autolykos
“Because you’re the one who doesn’t like it.”
This doesn’t make it my problem at all. If a student keeps making mistakes over and over, and I don’t like it because it anoys me, and I want them to not make the mistakes, it’s not my problem in any way, shape, or form. It’s their problem, and once they correct it, their problem goes away and I’m no longer annoyed by their mistakes. And, no, my having been annoyed wasn’t a problem at all.
Has nothing to do with my having a “problem”.
Autolykos
“Sure it does. It has everything to do with it.”
No, it doesn’t. And that wasn’t an argument. Or perhaps you’re saying that it would be a problem for you?
It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category [sic] of “anarcho”-capitalst, not being aware of it.
Autolykos
“What problem is that, exactly? Oh, right - the problem of using a definition that you don’t like for a certain word. But that’s actually your problem, because, as I said before, you’re the one who doesn’t like the definition they’re using!” They apparently have no problem with it."
And, you’re still having difficulty here. It has nothing to do with “using a definition I don’t like”. It has nothing to do with my “liking” it or not. It has to do with a person not using the term correctly. Again, this is their problem. Here, let’s try to make it simple: A guy comes running out of his apartment screaming “Apple! Apple!” Everyone passing by looks at him as if he’s insane. He looks back at them not understanding their seemingly unconcerned response. Meanwhile, his apartment burns down because no one understood his “subjective” and unconventional usage of the term “apple”, thereby not being able to get the assitance that he would surely have gotten had he used the appropriate term “fire”. Hence, this IS his problem, and not the problem of the folks who may have been slightly annoyed by his pathological behavior.
Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong [sic] note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
Autolykos
“The wrongness of the violinist’s note is not a fact.”
Yes, it is a fact. The note was written on the page. There was a correct way to play it and an incorrect. He didn’t hit the correct note. Period. This is a fact. But I guess if he just “subjectively” wants to read the notes in an unconventional way, then it’s everyone else’s problem, right? Again, not quite. The violinist has a problem and needs to correct it. Or he can be dishonest and claim to have been purposely playing atonal music because he didn’t have to do what the “collective” orchestra did. You know, thinking this demonstrated some sort of “freedom” and “liberty” from the “tyranny of the musician majority”?
Autolykos
“It’s a subjective value judgement imputed by the listener.”
Has nothing to do with “value” anything, nor is it subjective. It’s an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper. The listeners heard correctly, and they heard the wrong note. Then, upon looking at the sheet music just to make sure that note wasn’t supposed to be played, they see that they were correct, and te violinist was wrong. Hence, it was his problem, and he should fix it.
Autolykos
“So that makes it the listener’s problem. Thanks for supporting my point (however unintentionally)”
Again, you spoke before knowing what you were doing. This is your problem as well. None of the listeners had a problem at all. They simply recognized the violinists problem. They probably all pitched in to then try and get him extra lessons so as to assist when helping him to remove his problem.
Now, you’ve been working very hard at not responding to the most relevant arguments I’ve made, one being that of our apparent ability to communicate without objectivity in language. You asserted earlier, most definitely before thinking it through, that language was relative. Now, explain how communication takes place?