Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
While I agree with Mr. Stopa that language and definitions are often abused in politics, his discussion is riddled with misunderstandings. Mr. Stopa quotes Wittgenstein and pines for a more philosophical approach. He says, “From a logical point of view, definitions are irrelevant.”
First, be advised that much of contemporary philosophy is focused on exactly this: obsessing over definitions of words. Second, and more significantly, the example used is the opposite of what is claimed. Instead of being about definitions, it’s all about logic.
Mr. Stopa summarizes the pro-life argument, supposedly the template for vacuousness, as follows:
He claims, “That doesn’t get you anywhere from a philosophical point of view.” As it turns out, this is a classic Aristotelian syllogism. I think we can agree that Aristotle was a philosopher and that logical syllogisms are a foundation of philosophy.
Without getting into the merits of the particular premises of this syllogism, they do clarify the points of disagreement. If you agree with the first two statements, the third follows. The discussion can focus on the merits of those two statements. Likewise, one could make a syllogism for the pro-choice side.
The merit of being precise in language is that it makes it possible to use logic in discussions of contentious issues. Without precision, the discussion veers off into moving anecdotes and appeals to emotion. As Wittgenstein noted in the Tractatus (prop. 7), “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.” [See, I can also quote Wittgenstein.]