Me: > > _all_ concepts, it seems, are contestable/ed, including the concepts of > > "concepts" and "contestable." ... Saying that a concept is contestable/ed > > really doesn't say anything at all, except to remind us that all concepts > > are subjective constructs.<<
Ian: > Right. William Gallie's essay was a trivial exposition of a minor > problem of political discourse. :-> Lots of people write essays that are mere trivial expositions of minor problems. Why should we think that Gallie is any different? He may be an authority figure for you, Ian, but I prefer the old anarchist slogan "question authority." > > The way to deal with this is to be very clear about how one is using > > the concept (without pretending that one's usage reflects the True > > Form whose shadow we only glimpse vaguely on the cave wall).... > Clear is a vague concept. :-> Of course. But when someone uses a word representing a complex concept, it's always best to try to explain what he or she means by it. If you want have a reasonable discussion, this is better than leaving it deliberately vague or saying "it's contestable/ed so anything goes" or whatever the implication is supposed to be of the ho-hum fact that concepts are subjective. If the definition is still too vague, then people can ask for clarifications. Definitions aren't about Truth as much as about _communication_. Saying that "conspiracy" is contestable/ed does not add anything to any discussion. It would be more productive if you were to say that the different people in the discussion were using the word in different ways (which is what the use of the academic jargon "contestable/ed" is saying) and then stating your opinion of what the different parties' definitions were. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
