One of the most important realizations i ever made, was, we all have different definitions for words of definitions for words, ad infinitum. It happened when my will to be honest was seriously challenged, whilst being employed, to be dishonest. When i did not comply they dismissed me several times. It and what followed inspired Intequinism, my philosophy, which is defending; against the evil of idolatry, which opposes the ideas Truth and Love.
In Christianity it is taught how “God”, when “he” returns, will suffer. The indoctrination influences society negatively, because “God” and “Truth”, are usually regarded “One” in idolatrous religious indoctrination. The indoctrination has an effect on “the-group” (groups) and “the-individual” (individuals). Individuals each must overcome thoughts of being sacrificed, when being honest, and groups must reign in their sacrificing of honest individuals each, caused by indoctrination of utilitarian philosophy/religion. How must “honest” be defined to comprehend this? Only one definition can explain the reality, in my opinion, because people are sacrificed about things outside of selves, for example the influence of power. The definition for “honest” is found in the Correspondence Theory of truth. In Intequinism “honesty” is defined in relation to the idea Truth and manifestations of the Idea, in actuality. The manifestations happen when words correspond with actuality.
When evil opposes the idea Truth and honesty, it often argues an infinite regress. What is the meaning of “actuality” it could argue? Ones could answer “reality”. Then it could ask, but what is the definition of “reality”? An answer could be; that outside of selves, ones can agree about. Then evil can argue, ok so, if evil deceives about what evil is thinking, it is still honest, because honesty only relates to things outside of selves. Thoughts are inside selves therefore words do not have to correspond to evil’s thinking. This is especially where different definitions for a word become relevant, because concepts are usually, ideas inside our minds.
It raises a question. If honesty relates to the correspondence between words and thoughts and correspondence between words and actuality outside of selves, which type of honesty should be prioritized. The answer probably is, honesty should relate to correspondence between words and actuality outside of selves, and ideally that correspondence should be the same as correspondence between words and own thinking. The answer implies rejection of the use of metaphors, because metaphors cause difference between thinking and actuality outside of selves. Is it why poetry was sanctioned in the past?
When physical things correspond to words, honesty is clear. I can refer to a dog and point to it and most people will have no doubt what i am referring to. Using “dog” as a metaphor, i.e. when Socrates swore in “the name of the dog”, probably referring to Diogenes of Sinope or all Cynics/Vagrants as a collective, complicates communication, especially when it is used to influence others or insult others in the third person, whilst referring to humans as animals. This practice is common among cosmological religious people, who often use animals, like bulls, cows, dogs, cats, etc to dehumanize their opposition, in order to motivate, effectively, sacrificing of other humans.
I have now veered off from my original thoughts for this article. My objective was to explain that different definitions for words of definitions for words ad infinitum, motivate higher levels of honesty. Most people do not have a clue what others are saying and writing, because of different definitions in minds. It is especially relevant when many concepts are used. Realizing, it is very difficult to be honest, motivates more effort to be honest, and makes possible, overcoming of the indoctrination that “only God is” honest. Feyerabend’s philosophy, shows very interesting insights about this. He explains how Greeks, during their classic period had fixed definitions for words. Society had clear understanding what words meant, therefore they could communicate accurately. It also caused despotism, therefore the idea Love started opposing the idea Truth with different definitions. The realization that we do not hear, in others’ definitions, what others say, but hear, our own definitions, is certainly a realization on par with the realization that generalizations are usually false. “Do not generalize”, is a generalization. “Do not change definitions”, as well.
In my view honest people don’t use metaphors, because words then do not correspond anymore to actuality, we can agree about, outside of selves. Let’s say a person who call other humans dogs, have the word dog in his mind when seeing another person. He then talks about “the dog”, like Socrates did, for example. Is it honest? He uses the word in his mind, but it is not a word all can agree about, therefore it is not honest. Honesty thus, it seems refer only to the things outside of selves. Honesty can only be applicable to thoughts, meaning correspondence between spoken words and thoughts, manifesting in spoken words, when metaphors are not used, even in thinking. This has serious implications if someone wants to have an honest companion, because we are all taught to use metaphors from a young age.