Re:Levbor. I appreciate your response. I find it fair and well thought out. I enjoy this dialog. I find it difficult to "fault" your reasoning. Finding fault is not my goal, expanding my understanding of this difficult subject through serious and thoughtful dialog is. I reaffirm that formal language, and the disciplines that depend upon the uniform agreement of such language, and by extension, exact definitions are critical, in order to communicate effectively and efficiently, and achieve certain result. Common word usage can rise to the same level of understanding and agreement. As you have pointedly demonstrated, sometimes it does not. Yet I am persuaded that formal language; language that is well defined, is primary; in general, and necessary; specifically, to evaluate the "place", and significance of words and language in common usage. I would suggest that what is at issue herein is how understanding derived from experience; everyday experience and personal interactions, and how language is derived and understood from that scenario, bodes with, if you will, definitional language, found in various dictionaries, and codified, in grammar studies and language usage books. We are dealing with two "systems" that are far from compatible. The chair example demonstrates a cognitive gap that can only be fill with the evolution of language usage. The mere fact that an object does not fit well within a definition, does not prove that the primary definition is incorrect. This fact simply indicates the need to refine or extend, if not alter the definition. Language usage and the definitions therein are subject to an evolutionary process, according to usage and agreement. It is of necessity an imperfect process. But standards are necessary if we hope to maintain a high degree of consistency and mutual understanding. Again, formal language is not without limits, yet if we allow common usage alone to dictate the standard by which words are understood, I would suggest that chaos would result. This is precisely why I maintain that definitions are primary. Not absolute, occasionally in need of modifying, or updating, none the less, the primary reference for understanding, and communicating.

(That was me previously)
Yes, the subject of the post would be more properly formulated as "What is the significance of definitions?", as definitions in dictionaries obviously do exist.

To answer your question, "then what is primary?", in my opinion understanding from examples is primary.

You say that people need definitions in order to argue formally. You are right, but people don't argue formally most of the time. You don't go to a furniture shop and start arguing whether a certain piece of furniture is a chair. There are areas where formal arguments are important, such as law and mathematics, and in these areas definitions are primary. This means, for example, that a term means precisely what it is defined to mean. One can probably invent a new kind of furniture that people will call a new kind of chair, but one can't commit a new kind of crime that will be called murder though it doesn't answer the legal definition thereof.

In other sciences terms don't have such good definitions. For example, energy is often defined as the ability to do work, but that's not what energy really is. Or take biology. The definition of a taxonomical term is just the most convenient way to distinguish a set of genetically and evolutionarily related species from others. It's the most conspicuous common trait(s). For example, a mammal is an animal that lactates. However, if someone finds a lactating mutant bug, it won't be considered a mammal. Conversely, a non-lactating mutant goat will still be a mammal.

To sum up, a concept is more like a fuzzy cloud of traits, and a definition is like a small well-defined list of the most conspicuous ones.

The question, "do words have definitions", is the fundamental issue presented in the article. As to whether variations of the generally understood definition of a chair, or the structural variations of the generally understood concept of a chair, satisfy the "standard" definition of a chair is a different question. If definitions are secondary, what is primary? I would argue that definitions; even those with indefinite or confused meanings are primary, in that such words and their definitions are the starting point from which any discussion about said variations can be cognized or explored. It is not clear to me how this subject about chairs, in their various forms, relate to, "do words have definitions". Perhaps I am missing the point. Please explain. I am willing and desirous to learn. Of course, common usage can change and vary the understanding, definition, and meaning of words. Common usage over time "forces" lexicographers to redefine words. I use the word, "forces" because they prefer the standard definitions; as it applies to established literature and usage. Why? Simple, the new definitions render the understanding of past literature difficult or impossible to interpret. I am not suggesting that much of this change is unnecessary or unjustified. Notwithstanding, such changes, in word usage requires a broader understand of past and present word usage. In summary, words and their definitions, determine or demarcate the initial understanding of the words in question, yet common usage can potentially vary their meaning; in "everyday" parlance. Common usage does not actually change their meaning, at least in the short-term. The mere fact that words can be misunderstood, misused or varied does not change their fundamental meaning. Why is this important? If you hire a lawyer, broker, doctor, or any other professional, you better hope that exactness of language is employed. Established and well defined understanding of words and terms are absolutely necessary to articulate your case, or relate information to other professionals, if you expect the best possible outcome. Therefore, we must make a clear distinct between common word usage and definitions, and standard; well established word usage among skilled practitioners, in various professions, we entrust in our defense or care.

I'd say that for everyday words like "chair" definitions are not primary: An infant sees a chair and hears an adult call it "chair". This happens several times with different chairs, so the kid finds the common traits. Therefore, a chair is actually "something similar to all those chairs I've seen till now."

Concepts are extended to new objects that don't have names yet. For example, suppose the only existing pens are fountain pens. Now when the ball pen is invented, people will call it a (new kind of) pen because this is the most similar concept in existence. If the inventor makes up a name for this new pen in ads, e.g., "bop", and succeeds in making everyone call his invention "bop" instead of "pen", "pen" might retain the old meaning only. On the other hand, our concept of pen as "something that writes with ink" is useful for saying, e.g., "Does anybody have a pen?", so maybe in that hypothetical world "pen" would still have the more general meaning.

So the extension of concepts is influenced by many factors, and the definition / content of a concept may change as new types of objects emerge.

If words do not have definitions, what is a definition, and how do we proceed to explore questions about definitions? Are we confusing definitions with meanings or concepts, as they can potentially vary, in different contexts? Moreover, are the validity of definitions, relative to the above article, dependent upon a specific field or subject of concern? Do mathematical definitions fall under the same scrutiny? Why is it that if I learn a definition, my comprehension and ability to understand that word in various contexts increase? Is the article referring to all words or certain words? Is the article referring to linguistic theories that have little to do with my ability to understand what I read or write, or to arcane concepts, best suited to philosophical speculation. If words do not have definitions, in terms of their meaning, what do they have? How does one proceed to question whether or not words have definitions without firstly explaining precisely what a definition is? I believe there is a hierarchy to meaning, understanding and definitions, respectively, that must be clarified before attempting to question the validity, as to whether words have definitions. If words do not have definitions, how is it possible to communicate? If communication and mutual understanding are possible, what exactly makes that possible, if not agreement as to what words mean; in short, defined terms. Beyond any question, words have definitions, in the ordinary sense!!! The sense that word do not have definitions fall within the realm of arcane science, and are a subject suitable to linguistic journals. Otherwise, I suspect, we are "sawing the air", and creating a seemingly worthy argument for discussion.

the names of the most important philosophers to ever write about language as a whole:
Michel Foucault an Jacques Derrida!

Surely you must be joking Mr. Anonymous!

Gottleib Frege ... groundbreaking work in linguistics.

No way. He and others you quote are nobodies in linguistics. Why is it that you try to assume your own pet theorists (who, by the way, have a very mistaken view on linguistics) are anything at all in linguistics?

No. Language is not about "communication and getting your point across" unless you define these terms so that virtually everything you say is "communication and getting your point across" at which point the whole argument becomes rather silly.

"I move...":

How large a back counts? If you take a stool (3 tall legs) and put a very, very low back on it just 1 inch tall, is it a chair? What if the back is 2 inches? 3 inches? 2 feet? At what point does it become a chair?

Or take a typical dining room chair. Cut off the legs and rearrange them so that it only has 3 legs. Is it a stool?

This is a difficult problem that has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. If anybody writing comments to this blog has an answer, they are guaranteed to become as famous as Aristotle (and perhaps win a Nobel prize. Yes, they don't give Novel prizes for philosophy officially, but sometimes they cheat, cf Bertrand Russel).

Please try my web-based experiments

I believe that this entire blog post is comparable to asking for a definition of car that includes helicopter but excludes jet: utter nonsense. All 3 are vehicles and none of them are the same.

I move that bean bags are neither chairs nor stools, but rather are within the same category. All 3 are seats. A chair has a back while a stool does not. Others have noted this same point. A quick check of wiktionary.org confirms that this is correct.

If bloggers spent more time thinking and reading prior to writing then fewer people would waste time reading nonsense of the attitude "I have a misinformed opinion, therefore you should listen to me."

Your conclusion is impressive. I only had to change one reference from it so that your perception could be better intepreted by me:

"The reason why we are able to have a written and verbal language is not because of any sort of ingrained understanding or even specific knowledge. It is because we all have very similar sensory capabilities, and although we don’t always interpret things the same, or create each thing we see in exactitude, we do have sufficient numbers of commonality to reference which allow others to interpret what we perceive into something they can understand."

Regards,
Morrones

:-)

blah blah blah too much time on your hands

I have noticed, from reading these posts that people tend to use different prepositions when referring to "chairs" and "stools".

Therefore, I propose that a "chair" is something which you sit "in", and a stool is something that you sit "on".

and witgenstein

A stool is a chair of a specific type.
kind of like a brand name it performs the same functions but generally adapted to a different situation.
Then again, withe huge variety of chair now can we really say chair is a sufficient word there is something very different to me between a plastic round chair on a metal bar in a bus and an lazy-boy.

Chair is the most pick. If there's a change to rephrase this option between beanbag chair and stool, I would prefer to choose stool.

a chair is any item that we refer to as a chair - this will vary by local population, but a reasonably continuous map would exist over the human terrain

I've been interested in the inherent meanings of words for a few months now and encountered this problem in my thoughts.
The 'chair' paradox I arrived at was this...
How does one have coherent thought without language? And how does one have language without coherent thought?

Another related realization was that a sentence is very much like a mathematical equation. The more words you use the less you say. That is, the more precise in subject you are. Fewer words are more general and therefore encompass more meaning.

I suppose we're all misusing the word "chair" in lieu of the word "seat"...a seat is something which was meant to be sat on...whereas in addition to that, a chair is recognized as something that is made up of legs and a back. Respectively, a stool is a seat as well as it is defined as something which has legs but no backing.

bean chairs don't have back supports, they can just be flat bottomed. Or is that then a seat...?

We are talking about verbal Behavior, not about something inherent in an arrangement of letters or sounds. Skinner pointed out that the 'meaning of a word' really refers to the situational context - when, where, under what circumstances - it is or isn't Used. These behaviors are learned and trained over a period of time by a particular verbal community, in more or less mutual agreement. Like any other behavior there are situations where it is highly predictable that it (the behavior or word) will (or won't) occur, and others where it is more iffy and probabilistic. Some iffy examples for 'chair' might be stool, sofa, bench, trapese, swing, sling, hospital bed; or among other things one can sit on, ledge, lap, hands, face, fence, side lines.
Generalization & discrimination overlap as in other stimulus contexts (is this wavelength (which isn't a 'word') REALLY 'blue' or 'green'?, this pH 'sour'?). Asking if a stool is a chair is like asking if gray is Really white, or black. Or put otherwise, if black (chair) includes gray (stool).
Heisenberg would smile.
Ambiguity is acceptable, being unavoidable.

Although I have better things to do, because I’m reading this on a Friday I am trying to avoid them, so I’ve decided to be contrary and nit-picky just for the sake of the mental exercise.

Nit Pick: The challenge regarding the definition of the word chair and its relation to bean bag chairs and stools is faulty because of the word “chair.”

Definitions:
Stool – at least in the intentions of the author, (I doubt he meant bowel movements,) is a seat for an individual that has neither back or arms. Stools can be on a pedestal or on legs, they can be high or low. You can stand or kneel on them, sit on them or prop your feet up on them. A “Bar Stool” with arms and a back is named incorrectly. It is not a stool.

Bean Bag Chair – Well, these are just silly in light of what a chair really is.

Chair – Comes from the Latin word Cathedra, which was the location of a throne of a bishop of a diocese. Originally all very large and impressive church buildings weren’t known as cathedrals, only the principal church of a diocese, the one containing the throne of the bishop was a cathedra.

There is a perception that authority and power come with a pretty cool place to sit. Kings and queens, (and Bishops) come and go, but the throne will sit in the same place for many generations, and the idea of someone inheriting a throne, or usurping a throne implies that they now have the power and authority that comes with the big shiny chair. This is why you get your head cut off if they find you relaxing in the kings favorite place to rest his behind. Technically it doesn’t mean anything if you’re sitting on the throne, but what it implies is something else.

A “chair” is the literal or figurative location from which the authority within a given social structure is exercised… which is why calling a Bean Bag Chair a Chair is silly. We see this all the time too. If you buy a dining room set, the two seats that go at the heads of the table will likely be slightly larger. If you walk into a room where a committee meets, the only chair in there is the one the head of the committee sits in… the rest are just seats.

Of course, modern usage of the word “chair” has created a collective agreement that all of the seats around the table are chairs now. Folding chairs, lawn chairs, reclining chairs and directors chairs are all readily recognizable and each bring a visual notion to mind. And this is what the rest of the article is about. How can words be defined using other words if the collective understanding of what the word, or the words defining it aren’t static? Time, knowledge, perspective and education will constantly change how we interpret what we experience.

The problem has more to do with the way we process and translate words into information that our brains can work with. We don’t think in terms of written language. If I say the word “mouse” you won’t create a mental image of letters placed in a specific order in your mind. You will probably have a mental image of a small furry rodent running across a floor or of Mickey Mouse, or more likely a small hand held tool used as an input device for your computer. Our experiences will change the exact mental picture we see, but most of us will come up with something similar enough in nature that we will have some common ground.

The reason why we are able to have a written and verbal language is not because of any sort of ingrained understanding or even specific knowledge. It is because we all have very similar sensory capabilities, and although we don’t always interpret things the same, or create each thing we see in exactitude, we do have sufficient numbers of commonality to reference which allow others to interpret what we say into something they can understand.

Basically I wrote this whole thing so I would have a reason to use that topic.

Bench? Carseat?

The same could be said for a stool, or even a bed.

This is one of those arguments that exists solely so stoned undergrads can sit around and go "whoa, man...deep!"
It's basically mental masturbation, because the way they have defined the argument automatically leads into philosophical territories that are rich in stupidity and completely fail to map to reality, thus also failing to yield any conclusions of intrinsic worth whatsoever.

To put it another way- you can always create a philosophical conundrum if you frame the issue in a loose enough way, but it doesn't mean you've discovered some new paradigm of thought- it just means you managed to completely miss the point, and you're apparently not capable of accurate analysis.

they're taking it too far.

"define chair in such a way that includes bean bag chairs but excludes stools."

look at that first one there "bean bag chair" is a type of chair

same with stool

a chair is place you put your ass when you sit down, they all serve the same purpose just different forms. not a big deal here.

Language is not about definitions or symantics. It is about communication and getting your point across.

Beren

By asking me to define a chair to include beanbag chairs but not stools, you assume that I know the difference between beanbag chairs and stools. I cannot define 'chair' in such a way without knowledge of what a beanbag or stool are. Since beanbags and stools have different meanings for me, a precise definition is unimportant. If I understand what you're asking me, then there are preconceived notions of what a stool, beanbag, or chair already is.

Furthermore, defining a chair to exclude stools could be similar to defining mammals to exclude cats. How do you define silverware to include Krazy Straws, but exlude salad forks?
If you know what Krazy Straws and salad forks are, no further definition is required.

Beren

Eh, words pertaining to objects are defined by their function. Further specification is simply arbitrary rules put in place by the mind to keep some sense of logical order.

this is (most likely) because of w00t being word for the year last year..

Old hat - ceci n'est pas un pipe.

Exactly what i was thinking.

As is quoted by many in my communications field "words have no meaning - people have meaning." No wonder it's so hard to create definitions.

and beanbags...

Enmity is an active state of opposition. It subsumes patterns of visible action.

Hatred is an emotion of intense dislike. It subsumes feelings, internal states of consciousness.

Different evolutionary paths create different words for objects that appear to have a similar function. And so, don't you think it is more valuable to follow the pathway of the arisal of a word to its source than to twist all the meanings and parimutations into a cable to pass through to one definitive meaning?
Stool could very well have evolved from a three legged milking chair that was different from a higher kitchen chair and so was given another name to prevent confusion. When stool became taller or wider or was given a back it did not change but evolved from a root meaning attacted to an original object description.
And so a stool is not a chair and a sofa is not a chair in its evolutionary or its root meaning and those knowledgeable in furniture are not confused.
The confusion arises when you want to extract deep understanding of the nature of meaning and words based upon a tempest in a teapot riddle that can be contadicted at every turn.
Understanding meaning comes from the application of valid pricipals that are tested and applied. Such as root meanings of important word choices so that the desired object can be understood.
That is how we do it in Buddhism.

Maybe if these modern "philosophers" actually read and understood Aristotle's six treatises on epistemology, they'd be less confused about the distinction between concepts and words, and they'd grasp the nature and purpose of definitions.

Hint: a definition is not the meaning of a word. A word is not a concept. Concepts are neither just out-there nor just in-here.

A chair is not the sum of it's parts.
A back, a seat, a leg...are also not a chair.
A chair is something physical which serves a function.
Sitting.
It is mapped to sitting. Sitting more comfortably than sitting on what many would call a stool. It has an...innate meaning to us? Or possibly leanred -there is their debate, not mine.
Chair = sitting in something that we feel should be called a chair.

Gottleib Frege was a mathemetician working at a time when there was no rigorous definition of a number, which led him to conduct some groundbreaking work in linguistics. In his paper "On Sense and Referent" he proposed that words should be understood as having two sorts of meaning, similar (but not exactly the same as) connotation and denotation. His work had a profound impact on the work of Bertrand Russell.

Not long after, a school of philosophy emerged called logical positivism, which held (among other things) that the work of philosophy was to clarify terms of discourse for other disciplines. A.J. Ayer, in his (excellent but flawed) book "Language, Truth, and Logic" proposed a positivist program which asserted that metaphysical statements are nonsensical, and which admitted tautologies as the only sort of valid linguistic truths.

Around the same time as Ayer, Kurt Godel was working out his incompleteness theorem, which basically states that a formal system cannot be both self-consistent and able to express all truths about itself.

The ancient Greek philosopher Zeno proposed a Kafkaesque refutation of material existence: in order to go from point A to point B, one must first go half way; and in order to go half way, one must first travel half of that distance, and half the half distance, so on to infinity. So it's never really possible to go more than half way to any place (there's a more rigorous formulation of the problem involving a race between a Achilles and a tortoise). Zeno concluded that motion was impossible and the physical world self-contradictory. Because, however, he perceived things to exist, he decided his various perceptions of different things were acturally perceptions of a single cosmic substance; that is, we see different things, but really there is only one thing that just looks like different things.

In Plato's Parmenides, Zeno presents multiple arguments to a young Socrates in support of the position that "all is one," to which Socrates humorously replies: "So are you saying that there are fewer things in the universe than arguments you've just offered to demonstrate your point?"

Between these thinkers, we can see that words are limited and sometimes paradoxical, but that they nevertheless exhibit regularities in their irregularity which, if properly understood, can lead to greater understanding.

chair is a function - the fact that items are manufactured to serve as a chair does not diminish that. A rock can serve as a chair - so a chair is a result of a defined need- a ledge or flattish surface that is percieved as a good candidate for that function. How nice that whole industries arise to serve needs- of course.

Without knowing what a chair is, can you know what a stool is? Does it stop being a stool and start being a chair when you have no prior knowledge of either?

I argue that unless you have a preconcieved notion of "chair", you cannot percieve the difference between "chair" and "stool". The word itself is irrelevant, so if you know of neither chair nor stool, and encounter a stool, it's a chair. If you do have knowledge of a chair, then it's obviously a different kind of chair, for a slightly more specific but very similar purpose. It's impossible to know what a stool is without comparing it to a chair, so it's impossible that one would know about stools but not about chairs. Ergo, Stool = Chair, but Chair != Stool.

Perhaps there's a more elegant way of putting it than that, but if such an eloquent form exists, I do not know of it.

Does it have no aesthetic component? Could this also not describe benches, stools, settees, all manner of furnitur? What about a wheel chair; they move from place to place?

Language is a sea of infinite complexity, growing like the universe and evolving like life. It can only be understood by it's own tools and with ever ruccuring reference to itself.

Innit.

Last time I check, a stool came out of my rear.... a chair is something manufactured with the sole purpose of support a human in a sitting position.

Yeah But a stool does the same. I would consider a stool a chair.

A is A

Jackendoff's solution just moves the problem back from innate concepts (expressed in words) to innate meanings.

a chair is anything my ass touches for longer than 5 seconds.

A chair is something that has been manufactured for the sole intent of alleviating the need to stand in one place for long periods of time.

no?

many bar stools have back support

While reading about this particular subject I found it confusing to not read, even once, the names of the most important philosophers to ever write about language as a whole:
Michel Foucault an Jacques Derrida!

This sort of research will go far with natural language processors.

chairs have back support. stools don't.