Philosophy for Us
Part Three · Series 40

Conceptual Engineering

We're not fighting about the thing — we're fighting about the word.

8 episodes ↓ 32 sources ↓ MetaphilosophyLanguage

The question

You've been in this argument so many times you could run it from memory. Someone says a thing isn't really X — isn't really violence, isn't really a disease, isn't really racism, isn't really art — and someone else says it absolutely is, and you both reach for examples, and the examples don't help, because for every one you bring they have a reason it doesn't count. And at some point — late, usually, when everyone's tired — you realise you haven't been disagreeing about the thing at all. You've been disagreeing about the word. About where to draw its edge. About what it's for.

And the first time you saw that, it felt like a breakthrough — like you'd finally got underneath the noise to the real question. Of course. We're not arguing about whether she's a woman; we're arguing about what "woman" should pick out. We're not arguing about whether it's a disease; we're arguing about what we want "disease" to do. The fight got clearer the second you stopped pretending it was about facts.

And then, just as fast, it curdled. Because if the fight is about what the word should mean — then isn't the person redefining it just… cheating? Moving the goalposts? Changing the dictionary mid-argument so they win? You've watched people do exactly that, in bad faith, and call it progress. And you've done it yourself, in good faith, and called it clarity. And you genuinely cannot tell, from the inside, which one you were doing. You don't even know if "you can just decide what a word means" is a power you have, or a thing you only pretend to have while the language goes on meaning whatever it was always going to mean, with or without your permission.

What you practise

Win the definition and you win the argument. Most of us half believe that, and we reach for it when a fight will not settle on the facts. Here you learn to pull that habit in two. One question is what a word should mean, and for whose purposes; that one you can argue, and there are real standards for arguing it well. The other is whether you can make it mean that, out in the mouths of millions who never heard your case. Nothing is settled for you here. You leave able to argue for a better meaning without mistaking the proposal for the change.

The episodes

Each episode builds on the one before, and the finale hands the question back to you sharper, not settled.

  1. 01

    The move you've been making

    Some arguments no quantity of facts will close — whether it was really violence, really a disease, really racism — because the fight is about the word, not the thing. This first episode names the move, and separates two questions usually run together: what should the word mean, and can you change what it means?

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  2. 02

    'You can't just redefine words' — and why that's a cartoon

    "You can't just redefine words" is tested against the record: the whale stopped being a fish, "marriage" moved, and no one was cheated. The flat rule fails — but a sharper version of the objection is left standing for later.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  3. 03

    Designing a better word: explication and the ameliorative turn

    The ameliorative method, in the line of Carnap and Sally Haslanger: stop asking what a word means and ask what concept we should have, given the work the word has to do. The episode builds the engineer's toolkit and hands it its first serious objection, from P. F. Strawson — is this fixing the concept, or changing the subject?

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  4. 04

    The word only you are using

    A well-designed concept that nobody adopts changes nothing. This episode separates designing a meaning from implementing one, drawing on Tyler Burge's account of how meaning lives in a community, and ends with an exercise: write down what it would actually take for your word to win.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  5. 05

    Can you even steer a meaning?

    Herman Cappelen's challenge, from Fixing Language: what a word means is fixed by factors outside anyone's control — the history of use, millions of speakers, the world itself, in the externalist tradition of Kripke and Putnam. Deciding what a word should mean was never the same as changing what it does.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  6. 06

    But meanings DO move

    And yet meanings do move — "gay," "marriage," and "planet," which a room of astronomers redefined in 2006. The episode holds both truths together and finds the real question underneath: not whether meaning can change, but which changes can be made on purpose, and by whom.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  7. 07

    Whose word is it?

    If meanings move through collective uptake, implementing a concept is politics — whose purposes count, whose use sticks, against whose resistance. Kwasi Wiredu's question is put alongside: whether the very tools of the engineering are someone else's to begin with. The worst version — engineering as a polite name for winning — is held without rescue.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  8. 08

    The words you most want to fix

    The final episode runs every question in the series on one word, "violence," and gives the honest reply — you can propose what a word should mean and argue for it well, but you cannot, by deciding, make it mean that. What the argument was ever about is handed back unresolved, as it was always going to be.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →

Thinkers

The thinkers and traditions this series draws on:

Peter StrawsonSocratesRudolf CarnapSally HaslangerHerman CappelenHilary PutnamEsa Díaz-LeónKwasi Wiredu

Related series

Your turn

The paper you work for has argued about one word for a year: famine. Which crisis abroad earns it. Now the editor has ruled, and gone further. From next month the paper will use "famine" of this country too, of towns where children come to school having eaten nothing since Friday. The old word, she says, let a real hunger hide. At the editorial meeting a reporter stands up. His grandparents lived through a famine that emptied their village. Calling this famine, he says, borrows the weight of what happened to them.

  1. Is the editor saying what "famine" means, or what it should mean? If the second, is the old word failing at a job you can name, or does the paper want a heavier word?
  2. The paper can rule its own pages. Has that changed what "famine" means to readers, or to aid agencies? If not, what would, and who would have to do it?
  3. Is the new line naming a hidden harm, or changing the subject while keeping the old word's force? Whose purpose is it for, and who was not in the room?

A good answer keeps two things apart — what the word should mean, and whether the paper can make it mean that — says whose purpose the ruling serves, and meets the reporter on the weight he says his grandparents' word carries instead of ruling him out of order.

Sources

Written by AI under human direction. This is the reading the series was built from. checked against source means the passage was found in the cited work and a second, independent model checked the episode's use of it; supports in part means that check judged the use a little stronger than the passage alone establishes; passage located means a reader found the passage but it has not had the second check. Unmarked entries are background reading.

Where to start