Agreed. But you seem so sure of yourself that I simply have to take you on. All in good fun and all.... I hope nobody minds.Noelveiga said:Oh, man, wrong place to discuss semiotics, I fear.
If you take a word like 'patriotism' this miscommunication is exactly what you get. There are endless debates on who is a traitor and who is a patriot, simply because the word means different things to different people. With 'patriotism' the debate tend to stay so hot because in this case people generally refuse to adapt their nomenclature.Noelveiga said:If words were subjectively defined we wouldn't be able to communicate unless we shared a brain!
In the case of 'chair' and 'art' the misunderstanding is of the same nature. It's just nobody cares about the definition of 'chair' enough to flame for it.
The basis of human understanding of any concept is "I know one when I see one". This is subjectivity at it's best.
This is because:
a) Nature simply wired us up that way. You can't ague with nature.
b) We have nothing better. The definition of the word 'word' can only be given with other words. This means that any argument or definition is a circular one and has no basis in reality. We just use language anyway, regardless of this basic flaw, because it works. Not because there is a fundamental objective truth behind it.