Over the past year I’ve discovered that a lot of my academic work needs more than a little modification before I can share it on Stories & Soliloquies, and I’ve really enjoyed the challenge of explaining my favorite philosophers to an intelligent, but largely non-academic audience. I try to pull out all jargon, avoid obscure references, and limit my use of academese (that precious fashion of making ideas seem more complex than they actually are). I think that this has made my writing better and cleaner, and it has definitely helped me clarify my thoughts.
Still, a lot of jargon still slips in, and so – following James Pailly’s excellent example – I’ve decided to build a lexicon of philosophical terms. I’ve discussed the merits and dangers of jargon a few times before, but now I’m going to tackle the terms themselves.
I’ll be posting entries into the Philosopher’s Lexicon in between Philosopher Fridays posts. I will typically list the definition, give a general explanation, and then discuss how different philosophers use the term. I will choose the words to cover at random (there will be no sensible order besides what fits my mood). Some entries will be short, some will be long (I imagine “substance” will be on the longer side), some will be in groups of words, and some will be solo entries. Basically, each entry will be a bit different. I’ll try to keep them as brief as possible, and hopefully set the stage for a series of pithy snapshots.
While there are a lot of excellent encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy out there, I hope to (at least occasionally) tailor this space to the terms I tend to use here on this blog, and add in my own evaluation of whether or not my use of these terms is helpful, or whether I would do better to find another way.
And of course, I’m happy to take requests. I hope you enjoy this new feature – The Philosopher’s Lexicon – starting the week after next.
Stories & Soliloquies 
9 thoughts on “New Feature: The Philosopher’s Lexicon”
rung2diotimasladder
I can’t wait to read your definition of substance. That’s one I wouldn’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole!
Good luck with this. It’s a brilliant idea and I’m looking forward to it. I’d like to put in a request for “dualism”…it’s one of those terms that people use all the time, but I find it confusing, depending on the context. There are so many others that I can’t think of right now.
James Pailly
I agree. I’ve come across the word dualism a lot recently, and I’ve used it in conversations a few times even though I’m not 100% sure what it means.
Michelle Joelle
I might have to make that an early entry then!
Michelle Joelle
The substance entry is going to be a hard one – I might just list medieval figures and say “X uses the word this way. Y uses it this other way…” and leave it open to comparison!
rung2diotimasladder
I think that’s perfectly fine. There might not be one way to use the term, and by illuminating this fact people will learn to be careful. It will also be a fascinating venture unto itself.
Steve Morris
Definitions = dangerous territory, but are essential to clear thought!
Michelle Joelle
Agreed. I think I’m going to have to impose a strict word limit on myself to prevent this feature from expanding like Philosopher Fridays did.
James Pailly
Words have so much power over the way we think. After doing Sciency Words for however many years now, I think vocabulary should be the first step in learning any subject. Once you understand the terminology involved, it is so much easier to understand even the most complex concepts.
SelfAwarePatterns
I’m looking forward to this series. I agree with Steve that definitions are dangerous. Still, we’d be unable to communicate if we couldn’t agree on the definition of most terms, and philosophical terms that are confusing or used inconsistently are often at the root of the most intense philosophical debates, often between people with essentially the same ontological beliefs.