DIALECTICA DEFINITIVA - Praevenire Definitiones Non-Argumentativas

🔰 Definitive Dialectics - Anticipating Non-Argumentative Definitions

If you are familiar with Karl Popper's concept of "falsification" or the philosophy of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, you know this is a valuable philosophical heritage. However, it is not enough to address ambiguity in philosophy.

Philosophy Investigation

Wittgenstein, in "Philosophical Investigations," explains the issues in philosophy that trap us in understanding meaning. Specifically, it complicates defining because of the interconnections between word meanings.

There is discussion that forces others to distinguish between several words that are understood as one word, which risks misunderstandings. This should be avoided by broadening the dialectic.

It is indeed necessary to differentiate when needed. However, differentiation cannot involve words that tend to be interconnected.

Narrow Comparisons

It is natural to be required to define, even though definitions never reveal the full facts, given our limited perceptual abilities.

However, this does not mean we should force definitions, as narrow comparisons can trap us in ambiguity.

Yes, defining involves comparisons, but not in a narrow way that might cause overlapping misunderstandings.

Non-Argumentative Definitions

In philosophy, differences in word meanings sometimes lead to arguments about definitions. Each party insists, "What is your definition?" We first explain your definition before discussing it❗️Blah blah blah. We need to align perceptions first blah blah blah, what? The discussion often goes back and forth in attempts to define. Why?

📌 They force definitions word by word, while the words to be defined are interconnected.

• 👉 For example, distinguish between crying and sadness. Differentiate between anger and firmness. Distinguish between arguing and explaining. Differentiate between good and right, and so on.

🔰 This is what I call a non-argumentative definition because it attempts to define by comparing interrelated words.

• 〰 Definitions like this are non-argumentative because they are ambiguous, and using them in arguments leads to misunderstandings or becomes a futile debate, pulling words into different meanings, causing overlapping. This happens because they oppose interrelated words but force them to be separated as different definitions.

Non-Definitive Differences

When defining, differences should be evident. However, if the definition is done by comparing differences, it can sometimes lead to ambiguity.

For example, "bread" and "food" can be differentiated and thus defined. However, distinguishing between "cake" and "bolu" or differentiating "satay meat" to define "meat" and "satay" can create non-definitive differences. The interrelationship between words ("meat" and "satay") makes it challenging to define with strict boundaries.

⭕️ In this context, some words are often interrelated and cannot be defined separately without losing part of their overall meaning. For instance, trying to separate "angry" and "firm" or "sad" and "crying" strictly can overlook nuances in their meanings.

NON-ARGUMENTATIVE DEFINITIONS. Wittgenstein's philosophy has recognized similar to this confusion (non-argumentative definitions), but I have not yet seen a solution from his perspective

STUDYING WITHOUT PROBLEMS

As explained in "Philosophical Investigations" and "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein, the problems in philosophy revolve around language.

Wittgenstein highlights several issues related to philosophy:

• 1⃣ Unrealistic Premises. Between Facts and Meaning. The carelessness of premises not being connected to actual facts, which, if connected, can be broken down into atomic facts to clarify the relationship of meanings. Instead, they understand premises from the meanings of words.

〰 Wittgenstein carefully critiques the difference between addressing "meaning" and addressing "facts" in understanding premises.

• 2⃣ Similarity of Meanings. Where one meaning resembles another, making it difficult to include in definitions because one word can form different definitions.

I add one more issue from METAPhilosophy which I call:

• 3⃣ Non-Argumentative Definitions. This is my term for the problem in philosophy of carelessness in distinguishing between meanings of words that are interrelated.

👉 Example: Difficulty in distinguishing the meanings of "firm," "harsh," and "emotional," which are interrelated and also complicate separate definitions.

📌 There is an interrelationship between point 2⃣ and point 3⃣=

• 👉 In point 2⃣, one word has multiple meanings

〰 Making it hard to define because the word spans definitions. The word "game" can refer to "chess" or "soccer," which can differ in context.

• 👉 In point 3⃣, many meanings are considered to have one meaning, though there are differences not known how to distinguish

〰 Making it hard to define meanings, not because of different contexts like "chess" and "computer games," but because they are interrelated.

To simplify the distinction between Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance and METAPhilosophy's "Non -Argumentative Definition":

• 1 Family Resemblance: One word has similar meanings. ONE WORD WITH BRANCHED MEANINGS.

• 2 Non-Argumentative Definition: BRANCHES THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERCONNECTED.

In simple terms, "Family Resemblance" identifies variations in meaning, whereas "Non- Argumentative Definition" detects difficulties in correctly distinguishing and connecting those meanings.

✅ Non-Argumentative Definition focuses on distinguishing interrelationships, while "Family Resemblance" focuses on distinguishing similarities.

METAPhilosophy's Non-Argumentative Definition attempts to see the fine boundaries, whereas Wittgenstein's "Family Resemblance" aims to see the appropriate context.

📌 When combined, they form a synergy:

• 〰 After distinguishing where the dissimilarities lie, understanding the context, then testing the interrelationships to make the context more accurate.

Carelessness in Philosophy

Understanding classical philosophy is important, but it must be approached carefully. The goal of philosophy is to seek truth, but if classical philosophy is studied without proper solutions, one may become enlightened on one hand but encounter problems on the other. This is like learning and playing with fire.

There is a risk of carelessness in seeking and adding solutions, which is commonly known as:

• 1⃣ Blunder. When the attempt to find a solution actually adds to the problem, it is called a "blunder." Blunders result from a lack of proper consideration or calculation.

• 2⃣ Problem-Solving Paradox. Where attempts to solve a problem actually worsen the situation or create a new problem.

• 3⃣ Pyrrhic Victory (Victory At A Great Cost). This is a situation where solving one problem results in a new problem of equal or greater magnitude.

• 4⃣ Trade-off. The chosen solution requires certain sacrifices or consequences that might be undesirable.

👉 On one hand, it can be enlightening, but on the other hand, it can add to the controversy.

Philosophical Synergy

Thus, if you engage in philosophy merely to study and not to contribute solutions, you might find yourself stuck in philosophical problems. While you might gain some enlightenment, you may also become aware of new controversies, leading to an uncontrollable curiosity that results in confusion.

Wittgenstein suggests that it is better to remain silent about what is known rather than teaching something without solutions that only adds new problems—like "closing one hole and digging another." Assuming that philosophy solves problems might actually just bring more problems (Pyrrhic Victory) or even create bigger ones (Problem-Solving Paradox).

So, if you study philosophy and find solutions, but simultaneously encounter new problems, consider abandoning philosophy or join those who not only seek solutions in philosophy but also find solutions for philosophy itself. Thus, whether you engage in philosophy alone or with others, you avoid becoming like a group lost in the philosophical forest, confused and directionless, with solutions that may not fully address the existing problems.

Overcoming Non-Argumentative Definitions

Avoiding Ambiguity: Judging something based on a single word is risky, as it can be misleading. It’s not always straightforward to distinguish between meanings of words that are interconnected, such as "firm," "harsh," "egoism," "emotion," or "touched," "sad," and other related terms (not merely similar).

📌 This issue can only be addressed through Dialectics:

• 1⃣ Hegelian Dialectics. Differences are examined in terms of their interconnections, aiming to reconcile the oppositions.

✅ This is essentially an effort to find wisdom behind contradictions.

• 2⃣ Definitive Dialectics (METAFilsafat Solution). Multiple related meanings are defined dialectically to clarify their direction.

👉 For example, if forced to use "firm," "harsh," and "emotion," it could be expressed as:

• 〰 "Affirming the truth firmly (due to priority) without emotion (being forgiving)."

🔰 Although both Hegelian and Definitive Dialectics are naturally present in everyday life, they have only recently been formally highlighted in philosophy to make common wisdom clearer and more memorable amidst the many concepts available in society.

✅ Philosophy and METAFilsafat must observe and formulate concepts as concretely as science does. Thus, philosophy should not be seen as merely abstract but as realistic, objective, and possessing universal understanding of abstract concepts.

✅ This is a step towards ensuring philosophy not only complements science and mathematics but also leads in advancing them, despite their interrelated expertise.