[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Happy Birthday, Portland!

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
> Jeme A Brelin writes:
>  > You can't just ignore one of the meanings of the word just because it
>  > doesn't fit with your argument.
>
> Well, I'm not.  I'm trying to take a holistic view of what the word
> means.  All 10 of these definitions indicate individual, specific,
> meanings within a cluster.  That cluster characterizes the sense of the
> word.  When someone says "define X", they don't usually mean, "define it
> in such a way that we can debate it like lawyers."

Hold that thought.

> What they usually mean is "how are you using the word."

OK...

> I don't know what Russell intended when he asked us to define "love."
> But, I took his command to mean "how are you using the word 'love.'"

That's fine.

> And when I say "I don't love people I don't know."  The sense in which
> I'm using the word "love" is _all_10_ of the above specific senses,
> which cluster to create the whole concept.

But the charitable, Christian love does not require any knowledge of the
other person at all.

> Picking a single one of those out to be _the_ definition of the word in
> the sentence "I don't love people I don't know" is misleading.

I believe you brought this up to challenge MY use of the word.

> Not to mention that, since the original sentence was mine, I find it
> hard to believe that you know that I meant (9) and not, say (7) when I
> wrote that sentence. [grin]

No, the original sentence was MINE.  You challenged it by writing:

   I don't love people I don't know.  (And I posit that anyone who says
   they love people they don't know, especially those they haven't even
   met, is either confused or lying.)

Your definition of "love" was questioned at that point and it has been
shown that your definition does not include the concept of charity and
"goodwill to all" that was initially intended.

>  > > "To love people" means "to have an intense emotional attachment to
>  > > the concept of 'people'".  It's a generalization and a stereotype
>  > > just like any other.
>  >
>  > No, it doesn't.  It means, in this context, a charitable feeling
>  > toward all individual people.
>
> _Yes_ it does.  In this context, "to love people" means "to have an
> intense emotional attachment to the concept of 'people.'

It's not abstract like that.  When I say that I love people, I mean that I
love all people, not my abstract concept of people.  I feel the need to
support, give, and help all individual human beings.  There are practical
limitations to how I can express that love, but that doesn't invalidate
the feeling or intent.

>  > > I've also seen it used in the sense of "a strong predilection for
>  > > _interacting_ with other people".
>  >
>  > Not here.  That's not what it means in this context.
>
> Actually, in this context, "love" also means "a strong predilection for
> _interacting_ with other people."  Basically, I'm using the word to mean
> (1-7) as listed in the dictionary.

Well, you're lacking one very important sense of the word and it is the
one people are using when they say they love people they do not know.

It's actually very clear that you don't understand charity, otherwise, you
wouldn't be making a blanket negative statement about people (that they
are "either confused or lying").  You'd be able to give them the benefit
of the doubt.

> I don't love people I don't know.  If you'd prefer, I can be less
> ambiguous and do a little phrase substitution to make it easier to
> understand.

That's because you don't understand one aspect of love.  Other people CAN
say they love people they don't know (without being confused or lying)
because they have a better conception of the word than you have.

>  > See, with these sorts of things you CAN just pick one of the meanings
>  > and leave the others.  That's how words work.
>
> Actually, these specific entries (1-10) do not stand in isolation. That
> is _NOT_ how words work.  Words are defined by their usage. And the
> particular word "love" is used in those 10 ways as well as many others.
> Words work based on the context of the sentence, lexicon, and ontology
> in which they sit.

If a word is defined by usage, then we have an even stronger argument that
folks who say they love people they haven't met are neither confused nor
lying.  They're using the word in a way that is understood and true to
them.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org