 More often than not, language is the problem. An enormous amount of confusion comes from misunderstanding the nature of language, the relationship between language and objective reality. Linguistic errors plague every area of thought, and they affect everybody from the layman to the professional intellectual. But they become most important in philosophy, where small errors can affect our entire worldview. One of the most common errors is thinking that there are objective definitions for words. People waste an enormous amount of time endlessly debating about the correct definition for some word. But they're confused. Language doesn't work that way. The misunderstanding can be resolved rather simply. There are no objective definitions for words. This doesn't mean there's no objective truth or there's no objective reality. It's a specific claim about the nature of language. Definitions are subjective by their nature. So first of all, what is a definition? Can we with a straight face attempt to define definition? Well, I think the answer is simple. A definition of X is simply what we mean by X. It's the meaning that we're attempting to communicate. With this definition, it should become clear that definitions are simply not objective. Meaning is something that's in our minds. Our minds bring it to the table. It's subjective in that sense, not objective. Words do not possess meaning by themselves. Say I use the word hamablet. What does that mean? Well, it doesn't have any objective meaning. It means precisely what I intend it to. In this case, a blue house. I don't want to live in a hamablet. Now, how absurd would it be to say, no, hamablet isn't a word at all, or hamablet doesn't mean anything? I mean, certainly as I've demonstrated, hamablet is a word that is a very clear meaning. I can use it as effectively as I can any other word. But you won't find the word hamablet in a dictionary. So does that mean it's not a word? Isn't the purpose of dictionaries to catalog the objective definitions for words? No. Dictionaries simply record the commonly agreed upon definitions for words. We would have a very difficult time communicating if every individual used his own language and had his own private meaning for every word. So fortunately, we have common languages that use common definitions. And if we want to communicate effectively, we should try to appeal to commonly held definitions as much as possible. However, in no way does this mean that words have objective definitions, as I will explain shortly. We cannot ultimately understand language by appealing to words. This sometimes trips up the postmodernists. Dictionaries by themselves are linguistic dead ends. I think, for example, the word logic, a word that I use all the time in my work, I mean something quite precise when I use that term, and it's a bit different than the standard dictionary usage. This is true, in fact, for all core philosophical terms, philosophers have to expand upon the meaning of their terms in great detail in order to be precise, and you won't find the long expansions on the meaning of particular words in dictionaries. Philosophers should try not to get mired down, trying to appeal to the correct definition of the word logic. Rather, they must focus on what I mean by the term logic, or what you mean by the term x. Our understanding of language becomes much clearer when we understand the nature of words. We must have a definite answer to the question, what are words? Think about it, what makes a word a word? If we're just talking in a physical world, we might look at written words and conclude that words are just squiggles of ink on a piece of paper or dots on a computer screen. We might hear spoken words and conclude that they're just sound waves in the air, or we might observe sign language and think it's just hand movements. But obviously more is going on. Language isn't merely sound waves and squiggles, there's something additional that separates words from arbitrary physical phenomena. It is our concepts. There are certain squiggles or sound waves or gestures that elicit concepts in our mind. I like to think of words as a fuse. The fuse is attached to a stick of dynamite. The dynamite is a concept in the mind, and so effective communication is like lighting the right fuses, choosing the right words, to explode the intended concepts in the minds of the listeners. But crucially, what differentiates a written word from an arbitrary squiggle of ink is not objective. It is by convention. It's not inherent in the squiggles themselves. We can see this illustrated in many ways. Consider the experience of a typical Westerner encountering Arabic or Chinese words written on a wall. They're completely indistinguishable from pre-scribbles. Because Westerners do not understand Arabic, the fuse, if you will, isn't attached to anything. It explodes in the mind. We might be having the exact same visual experience as an Egyptian who understands Arabic, but our internal conceptual experience would be radically different. Word definitions truly objective or inherent in the word, then simply articulating the correct sounds or assembling ink in the correct manner would result in clear communication to every human. There wouldn't be any different languages. This is, of course, nonsense, it's almost superstitious, to think that meaning pops into existence once certain syllables are spoken in the correct order by themselves. This type of confusion resolves itself when you realize that words do not come pre-packaged with meaning. They are empty vessels. They are visual or auditory patterns that humans create. They only mean something when somebody understands the language, when that particular pattern lights a fuse in somebody's mind. When you understand language this way, it puts a damper on any attempts at perfectly precise communication. Given the inherent subjectivity involved, the complexity in each mind, the interrelationship between all the meanings of the words to particular people, clear communication is hard enough, but perfect communication is impossible. Here's what I mean. Let's say communication is about sparking the intended concepts in the mind of the reader or listener. I might have a conception of individual liberty that I want you to think about, but my conception is inescapably personal. It's a stick of dynamite in my own mind based on all the previous conceptual associations I've made over my entire life. No matter how hard I try, I am never going to be able to spark the exact concept in your mind as it is in mine. We're always going to be talking a little bit past each other. This is why effective communication is such a valuable skill. It tries to place our inherently different conceptions within some margin of error. I might communicate at length about a cat. Let's say I communicate its size, its color, its level of fuzziness and disposition. It might take me a page to describe this cat. If I've done my job, you'll have a very precise picture in your mind that I've painted, but no matter the detail, it will never be absolutely identical as my own picture. Take a simple case. Imagine a square with four one inch sides. It's top and bottom sides or oriented perfectly horizontally. Seems pretty clear, right? Well, perhaps your conception of the square is in a different color than mine. Perhaps the thickness of the lines is a little bit different. Perhaps the mental background image in mine is different than yours. There's going to be some tiny arbitrary criteria that's going to be different between us. So the point of effective communication is to clearly articulate all of the relevant criteria. If the color of the lines doesn't matter, then the two people having different conceptions in their mind are still within the margin of error for precise communication. If I'm talking about the concepts involved in architecture, if the house that you're imagining is of a different color than the house I'm imagining, that's okay. Take one more example. What if a stickler says, no, no, words do have objective definitions, and we must precisely identify and define all of our terms? Then we can have perfectly clear communication. And further, if we cannot perfectly define our terms, well, we cannot communicate at all. Well, let's try to communicate a simple sentence. The object was moving in a straight line. So if we want to be perfectly precise, we must define the words, object, moving, straight and line. And never mind for the sake of time, the words, the, was, in, et cetera. So what do we mean by moving? Well, something like being in motion. And what exactly do we mean by motion? Well, it's the state of being in the process of changing position. Oh, and what do we mean by process and changing and position? I suppose you could try to say, well, position is a location in space, but then we have to define what location and space is. Do you see the pattern? Whenever we define words with words, we're left with more words to define. It's a futile task. You can never fully conclude at some point these words will suffice as a self-evident definition. No, no words speak for themselves. Language simply doesn't work that way. Ultimately, words require ostensive definitions. We are forced to point something and say, that's what I mean. And if we can't point to it, we have to rely on the other person's intuition. We have to figuratively point to what we mean. Think about how you learned language as a child. When you heard the sound cat articulated by your parents, did they try to explain what a cat was with words? Did they say, oh, child, you see, a cat is a feline with four legs that has colorful fur and big pointy ears? No, of course they didn't do that. You don't tell a child that a cat is a feline mammal that has paws and claws. You point to a cat and you say, that is a cat. Then you point to many other examples of not cats. You point to dogs, you point to humans, objects. You distinguish these between cats and non-cats. And ultimately, it's up to the child to intuit the defining features of a cat. This is the key. Understanding language depends on the individual's ability to abstract from concrets. It has nothing to do with the objective construction of a sentence or using objectively correct words. If somebody lacks the ability to abstract, it does not matter how many words you use. They can never understand what you're talking about. Imagine you visit an indigenous tribe in the middle of South America. The people you meet have never heard English and you've never heard their language. Say you were trying to communicate the concept of, can I drink some water to them? Would you merely speak some words? Would you write down an English phrase on a piece of paper and assume they're going to understand? No, of course not. You would gesture, you would point, you would play charades with them until you think they've intuited the concept. It wouldn't matter how precise you made your English sentences, they don't understand the language. It's precisely because words don't have objective definitions. This realization forces us to understand the inherent imprecisions in language. We can never have perfectly precise communication. We're forced to rely on intuition, abstraction, and hoping that you've lit the right fuses in somebody else's mind. Precise communication requires creativity. It is not a perfect science. Now, that being said, we mustn't conclude, as many do, that since definitions are subjective, words simply mean whatever you want them to mean, and therefore communication is impossible. This is just another popular linguistic error. It's kind of on the other side of the spectrum. Instead of arguing for what you might call linguistic objectivity, some people argue for a kind of radical linguistic subjectivity. Neither position is correct. There's a difference between saying words are given meaning by their communicator and words have no meaning behind them. There is no outside text. You can therefore interpret words however you please. I mean, communication is not completely futile. If I say, I'm going to the store today, only a fool would conclude, I can't know what you mean. Therefore, I interpret your words as saying I shall eat a hamburger today. No, you still have correct and incorrect interpretations of language, not because words themselves have objective definitions, but because words are objectively intended to mean something. So a correct interpretation of language would mean accurately understanding what the communicator intended to communicate. Notice that doesn't really matter what words are used. I mean, my wife and I make up words all the time. Whether or not we're communicating precisely has to do with intention and being understood. Not a particular sentence construction or vocabulary. So if we want to rescue the concept of objectivity in language, we might say there is objectively intended meaning, but not objectively intrinsic meaning. And intended meaning can never be perfectly communicated, and that's okay. This conception of language is not irrelevant. It directly applies to every field of thought and indeed to every area of our lives where we use communication and relationships in particular. If people understood language more clearly, I think the majority of arguments would either never happen or would progress very differently. When you start asking, what do you mean by X? Instead of assuming that you share common definitions, you will be immediately shocked by how imprecise language is. I guarantee that people do not use words the same way that you do. Everybody has their own slightly or sometimes radically different meanings. This is not a bad thing as long as you're aware of it. It might feel comfortable to assume that your words mean the same thing as other people, but this is just kind of a comfortable delusion. If you talk precisely enough, you will discover, in fact, that's not the case. So in the world of ideas, whether in philosophy, politics, economics, etc., I can hardly imagine the time that has been wasted arguing about correct definitions. What is the right definition of government or economy or population? What's the correct definition of science or philosophy or rationality? These questions are useless. There are no objectively correct answers. Think of how silly it would be to spend hours arguing with somebody that the Supreme Court is an unjust institution when all along you've shared different definitions of justice. That would be a complete waste of everybody's time. But unfortunately, this type of disagreement happens frequently. The solution to all of these problems is very simple. Just explain what you mean by the terms that you use and understand that imperfect communication is unavoidable. That's just the nature of language.