This has gone back to that?!
But you are fairly clearly attempting to to act as the arbiter of that definition and accurate use of the word for all native English speakersā¦
Which is pretty much saying āmy definition of art is the only appropriate and acceptable definition of art.ā
Iāve pointed to my observations of how people use the word. Iām trying to propose a definition that fits that usage.
It seems to me that any definition that I offered would be subject to your saying āWho are you to define words?ā But I donāt see why people should be forbidden to define words. Iāve criticized other peopleās definitions of art; but Iāve never suggested that it was out of order for any of them to try to define it.
But we have established in this thread numerous definitions of the word, all from (Iām assuming) native English speakers.
Thus philosophy degenerates yet again to lexicography.
2 Likes
Paging Ludwig Wittgenstein . . .
Seriously, a lot of philosophy involves pushing words outside of their ordinary meaning and context, to advance some particular thesis, without acknowledgment that such a thing is being done. And the particular merit of Wittgenstein and Austinās writing was that it tended to emphasize that this was a problem, and to look at how people actually used words.
Yes, and youāre free to criticize mine. But if youāre just saying, āWho do you think you are, to define a word?ā then Iām going to ignore you.
Iām criticizing your assertion that your definition is the only acceptable definition to be prescribed to othersā conception of art, which you say youāre not doing, then proceed to do just that. Is that really not registering?
OK. this thread is done. Direct attacks are Not On.
It was worth a try to have this discussion, but it hasnāt worked and itās been going round in circles for days now.
4 Likes