Was the USSR actually a communist nation?

Economics Political Theory
101

I don’t believe I said that simply using new meanings implicitly per se is dishonest. I said that using them implicitly, while expecting one’s listeners/readers to be unaware of his different usage, is dishonest. Barring that, I think explicitly stating one’s unconventional definitions for words should certainly help (at least) mitigate any potential for misunderstanding between him and his listeners/readers.

Keep in mind that I’ve been consistently talking about non-fiction here. I don’t see how literature in the sense of art has any relevance. In any case, I think oftentimes there’s sufficient surrounding context for one to reasonably* infer an unconventional definition. People also often seem to assume that others already share their definitions for (most) words.

Can you explain what you mean by “for […] the cost of others”? If you’re talking about looking down on others, what is exactly taken from them by doing so?

Depending on the definition being used for ideology (oops!), one could argue that everything we talk about is a matter of ideology. Of course, that would mean the term “ideology” loses all distinctiveness. In any case, could you tell me what you mean by “ideology”? Because I’m honestly not sure at this point.

That’s up to you, of course. But why not?

So essentially you’re talking about the genetic fallacy and/or the association fallacy. Why not just say that?

On the other hand, if talking about e.g. fatness in a newly derogatory way might not lead to “people” making that association, then that means talking about it in such a way will not necessarily lead to “people” making that association.

Finally, if a person is called out on his use of “language politics” and is undeterred by it, what then?

Apparently most people either don’t see them as part of a centuries-old social movement, or they don’t find that centuries-old social movement to be all that prominent or noticeable. Do you think it could be anything else?

I fail to see how relying on default (i.e. conventional) definitions doesn’t get me or anyone else very far.

Can you explain what you mean by “effect” in the context of using words? I seem unable to infer whatever general principle you’re referring to (if any) from the apparent example you provided.

What do you mean by “all language is implicit”? And if it’s all implicit, then don’t “implicit” and “explicit” lose all distinctiveness?

  • By “reasonably” I mean in accordance with that fundamental premise I mentioned earlier.
102

Autolykos,

The fundamental premise you’ve outlined is completely useless. What is the ‘default’ definition of a word? Dictionaries have different definitions, and even then, definitions are full of other words that need to be looked up and decided. When can we stop looking things up in the dictionary? And what happens when we’ve ended up cross-referencing all these definitions and end up at the word we were initially looking up?

The only way you can begin to understand a “default” definition is to come in with a basic understanding of language in the first place. That one can reasonably figure something out given the context says nothing about what kind of readings are reasonable and what kinds are not, which is something you seem to be arguing: that there is a decidable point to a text. If you want anything you’ve said to hold up you’re going to have to stop relying on things being universally more or less reasonable and give some actual criteria to how a text can be decided. You haven’t even started to answer any of my questions with anything other than you can “reasonably” figure out what someone meant without explaining at all what entails a “reasonable” reading.

“Can you explain what you mean by “effect” in the context of using words? I seem unable to infer whatever general principle you’re referring to (if any) from the apparent example you provided.”

“John Doe is the life of the party.” In that context it would seem as though someone is talking about John Doe being a fun person at a party. I heard a sentence like that on the radio today and they were talking about the Republican party. The effect that had on the text was by making use of a double entendre they made the phrase stick out and added depth to the personality they were describing by making whoever it was seem like a fun person and also an important part of a certain political party. That’s one example of what I mean. While there was a denotative meaning with it, the DJ not being explicit was what added some flavor to the story.

Then again, they weren’t explicit. And maybe there’s not enough context to figure out what they meant and it’s garbage. Or maybe there’s enough context to decide that they meant one thing and one thing only and that’s the only reasonable thing to infer.

“Keep in mind that I’ve been consistently talking about non-fiction here. I don’t see how literature in the sense of art has any relevance.”

If you want examples of non-fiction that used non-explicit definitions, double entendre, metaphor, or anything else that opens up a slew of possibilities then I’ll be happy to oblige. Keep in mind that I’ve been consistently talking about language.

103

Are you saying that dictionaries have multiple definitions for a given word, or that different dictionaries don’t agree on singular definitions for a given word?

Yes, definitions contain other words - presumably other words that have already been decided. Keep in mind that by “default” I meant what you called “conventional”. And certainly multiple conventions can exist.

You seem to be arguing that definitions (i.e. associating meanings with words) are useless. But the whole point of defining words is to distinguish meanings, isn’t it? Certainly you don’t find distinguishing meanings to be useless?

Well, what would you say that “basic understanding of language” is, exactly?

There certainly can be. Whether there is or not is up to the author - the more notion of which seems to be anathema to you, for some strange reason.

So you say. As far as I can tell, I’m not obligated to follow your demands as such.

I’ve already explained how a text can be (approximately) decided. If you need more help understanding what I said, just ask.

Well as far as I’m concerned, I have indeed at least started to answer your questions. I think it would be more accurate - and honest - for you to say that my answers simply don’t satisfy you (so far). That’s a different thing entirely from accusing me of not even having started to answer any of your questions.

I still seem unable to infer whatever general principle you’re referring to (if any) from the apparent example you provided. Hint: try explaining your general principle(s) as such, not by expecting me to be able to pluck out bits and pieces of them from your examples and put them together correctly.

I’m having trouble here trying to sift out any actual points you’re trying to make from the apparent mockery.

Are you implicitly (oops) accusing me of not talking consistently about language?

If your point is that there can be more than one way to interpret a given piece of spoken or written language, then I agree. Furthermore, I don’t see where I implied that it’s necessarily otherwise. Here’s a basic example, a headline I saw this morning: “[County X] gives green light to travel stop on interstate”. I was confused by the use of the phrase “travel stop”. Initially I thought it might be referring to closing down one or both sides of the interstate. So I clicked on the article to see if my interpretation was reasonable. As it turns out, it wasn’t. It was clear by the context of the article that “travel stop” referred to what’s also called a “rest stop” - a facility adjacent to the interstate that motorists could stop at and use the bathroom, buy snacks, etc. My point is that, while multiple (indeed, theoretically, infinite) interpretations of the mere phrase “travel stop” can be made, they’re not all equally valid vis-a-vis the context in which the phrase is used (assuming one exists).

104

If you really wanted to know what my understanding of language is, then there is more than enough text here to figure it out. Language is defined by its use, which is a collective process. It’s a mutual activity, not one where meaning is dictated from one side through language to the other.

As far as everything else, you’re just dodging the question at this point. That convention changes, that translation effects the text, that there are millions of barriers between authorial intention and the reading of a text are still factors you cannot answer to by anything other than grasping some non-existant idea of a stable or conventional definition. You keep agreeing that convention changes, yet somehow believe we have access to what author mean by using conventional definitions unless stated elsewhere, as if conventional definitions are some kind of rosetta stone.

For instance, that Marx and Stirner were both influenced by Hegel, and came to radically different conclusions, does not change the fact that Hegel’s writing affected both of them, had very real yet different meanigns to both of them, nor that either of them are Hegelians. Whether or not Hegel had said to one of them, “no, no, no, you just don’t get it,” would not have effected the meaning Hegel’s work had on one of them. Nor would it stop that reading of Hegel from continuing. Chalking it up to ‘dishonesty’ or an ‘incorrect reading’ is to diminish the role the reader has in deciding a text, as well as the effects that ambiguous stylistic things like metaphor or double entendre are supposed to have.

Anyway, when you find some kind of way to access the intentions of the author, let me know. Until then, there’s more than enough posts here for me to leave this conversation alone for the time being.

105

Leaving so soon? What are you afraid of?

Until you come back, I accept your concession.

106

Oh Autolykos. You hate being wrong. Trolling on your own turf is unbecoming.

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Language is all ambigous, as you love to say when making snide remarks like the one I’m about to, but my guess is that you cling to all this bullshit about language that you can’t answer to because you just hate being wrong. You believe you can unilaterally change the meaning of one word or another and always be right because it’s a childish attempt at always being right.

Anyway, I take the word “concession” to mean a declaration of rightness. So I accept that you accept that. Just to be clear, if you respond, I have trouble with the definitions you use. So if you could cite a definition for every word, and every word in the definition, then that would make things easier. If you don’t, then I’ll assume that you’re just saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, and neener neener.”

I can’t imagine you’d be saying much else.

107

Oh Birthday Pony. I wasn’t trolling at all, as far as I’m concerned. What I was doing was calling you out on your BS. I don’t mind being wrong, as long as I understand how I’m wrong. But apparently you hate not having the last word.

Just so we’re clear, you were the one who backed out of this debate, not I. I don’t consider that to be commendable in the least, and I decided to indicate that to you. Sorry if I struck a nerve!

108

You are right about one thing: I do hate not having the last word. This is something I try to deal with beause it’s annoying, both to myself and people I’m talking with. Unfortunately for both of us, I’m not dealing with that urge right now.

Anyway, just so we’re crystal clear, there’s a difference between “you’re dodging the question and unless you can answer it I’m pretty much done” after multiple long-winded posts and “I’m leaving the debate because I’m scared.”

109

That’s entirely up to you. It doesn’t really bother me, though.

There is. There’s also a difference between those and “I’m leaving the debate because I see no way to ‘win’ it.”

I thought I already said this, but I really don’t see how I’m dodging any question. Once again, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like I answered the question you’re accusing me of dodging (if I understand you correctly). So your accusation only makes sense to me if you really mean that you’re not satisfied by my answer. Yet I don’t think you’ve really explained how my answer is unsatisfying, let alone how you think I didn’t answer the question to begin with. Anyhow, that’s where I see us at this point.

110

You could not even have chosen to assign the concept of apple to the word horse without being dishonest to yourself.

Before I address what you write above, I’d like you to explain what you mean by the sentence I emphasized. I fail to see how defining a word in an unconventional way would be dishonest to myself.

I’m not talking about the speaker defining the word, but the listener. If someone said, “I rode my horse yesterday.” You could entertain the possiblity that he meant, “I rode a piece of fruit yesterday.” You could even reply as if this was what he meant. But you could not choose to believe that this is what he meant (unless something else in the context indicates such an unconventional use).

My entire point has been that just because some people call the Soviet Union “communism” doesn’t mean I have to call it that.

Yes. I said the same thing earlier.

111

Well, why not? I can’t choose to believe things?

Okay then. So where’s the disagreement, exactly?

112

“Yet I don’t think you’ve really explained how my answer is unsatisfying, let alone how you think I didn’t answer the question to begin with. Anyhow, that’s where I see us at this point.”

Just in case you missed it:

“That convention changes, that translation effects the text, that there are millions of barriers between authorial intention and the reading of a text are still factors you cannot answer to by anything other than grasping some non-existant idea of a stable or conventional definition. You keep agreeing that convention changes, yet somehow believe we have access to what author mean by using conventional definitions unless stated elsewhere, as if conventional definitions are some kind of rosetta stone.”

I’m looking for a way that we can reasonably infer the author’s meaning. You’ve said you think we can do so reasonably, and that the reasonable thing to do is defualt to conventional definitions. That convention changes, that authors often use unconventional definitions without being explicit, that context changes, etc. is what I’m looking for an explanation of. How can we rely on conventional definitions when conventional definitions change?

113

Well, why not? I can’t choose to believe things?

Not without a reason that takes into account your intuition of the object.

Okay then. So where’s the disagreement, exactly?

You tell me. I never said I disagreed with you. I was trying to bridge the dispute between you and BP.