Everything Makes Sense

Every person, with his or her ideologies, makes sense. The lovers, the haters, the Christians, the Hedonists, the loyal leaders who give up their reputation for honesty and justice, the loyal leaders who lie to keep the peace.  The pro-life advocates, the pro-choice activists, the pacifists, the patriots, and even the terrorists.  Every way of life is objectively reasonable as long as it is lived consistently. Why? Because definitions are subjective.

Every philosopher creates his own definitions. Last year, as a senior in high school, I was earning (justifiably) a C plus in Pre-Calculus. I was desperate for at least an A minus, so I began grabbing at any extra credit I could squeeze out of the professor. Finally, I found in my hands the first five chapters of The Ontological Argument, Anselm's proof for the existence of god (my math teacher loved philosophy), and was told to write up an analysis of the proof. And I began to analyze. 

Somehow, in the earlier chapters, Anselm came to the conclusion that God should be defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." He went on to prove God's existence and, furthermore, his characteristics based upon this random, yet impressively creative, definition. "That than which nothing greater can be conceived" was the foundation of Anselm's argument. But, of course, God, in general, is also described as "the eternal and infinite creator." Couldn't this too have been used as a foundation definition for "God"? Easily. Only, Anselm would have had to construct an entirely different proof for the existence of God (now defined as "the eternal and infinite creator").  The truth of the argument depends totally on how Anselm defines certain words.

Definitions are the foundation of an argument. But there is nothing to stabilize the foundation. While every argument stacked on the foundation must be consistent with every block laid below it, the foundation itself remains a random innovation (perhaps backed by years of historical repetition). Definitions, therefore, are subjective. The consistency of every argument that follows, however, can be judged objectively.

Examples: To some (including Anselm), the definition of "evil" is "the absence of good." In a world that truly believes this as the definition of evil, activists might try to fill this "absence" by openly loving the murderers, the rapists, their enemies. -pacifists

    To others, the definition of "evil" is "the presence of selfishness." Now that evil is a "presence," activists might attempt to rid of it, therefore justifying violent acts. All evil must die so that good may reign. -military efforts in Iraq (in viewing Saddam Hussein as on his own selfish agenda), terrorists in 9-11 (in viewing America as full of selfishness)

Neither of these definitions are better than the other, since neither foundation can thoroughly be proved or disproved due to the subjective nature of definitions. What should be marked down, however, is how consistently each person lives by his or her collection of definitions. As people who live in this world together, it is our job to attempt to understand other people's definitions. At this point, we can more easily collaborate and work with each other, keeping the world moving forward (as long, of course, as this is consistent with our definition of a healthy and thriving world). 

This Concept's Importance To Debating

It is impossible for a woman who believes that reality (the physical world) is, in her dictionary, "tangible and objective" to discuss the existence of the color blue with a man who believes that reality is, in his book, "subjective and relative". No matter how well they argue their points, there will be no progress in the discussion, because the oppositions' core foundation (definition) differs. 

In order for a productive conversation to exist, there needs to be a common idea, an agreeable foundation for the two sides to spar each other upon. 

For example, in the abortion debate, many pro-Choice advocates insist that the fetus does not become human at conception but that it is still part of the mother's body, whereas pro-Life advocates insist that the fetus does indeed become a human being at conception. With no agreement (common definition) on the beginning of a human life, no progress can possibly be made in an inflamed argument. 

Negotiations would resume, however, if they were shift their attention to the woman in the matter. Both sides agree (for the most part) that every woman has human rights, should be respected, and, like every human being, has real-life responsibilities. With a common definition, talk may resume (I will express my view in a later entry).

The Purpose of This Blog (Judge of Consistency):

Analyze news articles and stories and opinion pieces: What are the journalist's core definitions and is he or she being fair and consistent with these definitions. In stories or interviews, what are the subject's core definitions? Are there any inconsistencies?

In opposing articles (conservative versus liberal leanings on the same topic): What are the core definitions established? What are the differences. Where is there a similarity and, therefore, room for discussion? 

All claimed inconsistencies are merely suspicions. We cannot slam our fist down until we have questioned the subjects of our studies about how they can justify their actions. 

This court is in session.