Outrageous???

2002-10-6 15:55:00

Larry's post,
Diane wrote:
"But the point JJ was making is that his comments or teachings are derived from his definitions of words he uses, not necessarily a dictionary's."

In the first place it is perfectly ok to use special or restricted definitions of words just as long as you clearly signal that you are doing so, and clearly explain what your definition is. Otherwise people are quite justified in assuming you are using a fairly standard meaning. As a literary device it is a great technique to make an apparently outrageous remark (it tends to grab people's attention) and then carefully explain how it is true in some particular context - the context in part may be a special, or restricted definition that makes sense out what at first appeared to be an outrageous statement.

Here is the quote that started this whole debate in the first place:

"Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent," he said. "In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety."

"Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent" appears to be the "outrageous remark." As most people understand tyranny, that is a patently false statement. My assessment is that the following sentence; "In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it" is not sufficient to signal the special, or restricted definition, and the premises that explain this remark.

Obviously by now, we know that there are principles here that you are attempting to convey. What I would suggest is that you "go back to the drawing board" and figure out how you can add a little more dialogue here that _clearly_ explains what definition of tyranny you are using, so that the conclusion that most tyrannies are the result of the actions of a minority is clearer.

Like I said earlier, this can be a great literary device (and I am sure you know that). But you have to pull off the "punch line" better in this case. :)

JJ
The definition I gave was in alignment with the main definitions given in the dictionary and in alignment with majority thinking.

You accuse the statement "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent" as being "outrageous" yet you have not been able to give one example where this is not true in the free world. Also note the use of the word "almost."

If you cannot tell us why the statement is not true, please do not use the word outrageous in reference to a true principle.

Note: I did not say that all have to use my definition, but gave it to you for the sake of clarification - so you can understand what I am saying. I noted that if you are using a different definition in your posting please let us know.

Larry and Travis, a question. Do you disagree with my definition? If so, how?