The Truth About Definitions

There is no such thing as a definition that does not use words, and there is no such thing as being able to clarify every word in a sentence without providing separate definitions, which already uses words that cannot all have yet been defined in initial conversations between individuals.  It is logically impossible to preemptively provide precise definitions without using some words that have not been yet defined in that sentence or conversation for the other party; prolonged or repeated discussions still inevitably started with then-undefined words.  This is a paradox of interpersonal communication through language.  If people could see into each others' minds, language would be entirely unnecessary.  Our lack of telepathy makes it mandatory for precise communication.  Still, it is impossible to start using language in conversations with somebody and, even on the level of what they have said about their words, know all of their clarifications about their terms.

As an aside, it is absolutely asinine to believe that a dictionary definition must always be correct, since words, as I have often pointed out, have no set meaning but what their users mean by them.  A dictionary definition can also be conceptually inconsistent.  Belief to the erroneous contrary also rests invariably on the fallacious epistemological appeal to authority.  A dictionary furthermore cannot escape using words undefined in the explanatory sentences where they are employed to define specific terms.  Eventually, inside or outside of a dictionary, you will also have to use some words to define others which have already been used in some other definition or have to resort to synonymous words or phrases because the possibilities of language are finite.  On a purely linguistic level, this is inevitably circular.  The logical impossibility of infinite regress and the sheer arbitrariness of language make this the case.

If this was not true, it would only mean there are always newly introduced and thus undefined words every time someone attempts to clarify terminology.  The very fact that some things are logically possible and impossible also already requires that there cannot be an infinite number of new words, of course.  Words can only vary so much before they would be the same.  The units constituting words in any language can only be arranged in so many ways, despite how incredibly large the number of linguistic possibilities are.  It does not make a difference in one regard that the number of linguistic possibilities cannot be anything other than finite, though.  Definitions are only so helpful because they inescapably use other (at some point) undefined words to define the word(s) in question even as a group of definitions has to inevitably use words in a circular manner to maintain consistency.

However, just because someone uses words to define other words in a circular way does not mean they are holding to the fallacies of circular reasoning.  There is no other choice for non-telepathic beings using an intrinsically arbitrary system of sounds and symbols, yet fallacies can be avoided in full.  Circular reasoning, now, is erroneous because something cannot be known to be true from itself if it is not inherently true.  Logical axioms cannot be false; for it to be true that nothing follows by logical necessity from other things or that what follows logically is not necessarily true, it would have to follow logically from the nature of reality that logic is false.  Thus, this being false still requires that it is true.  It is not circular reasoning to realize, believe, or linguistically affirm this, as circular reasoning is an epistemological matter of assuming that something which is not necessarily true is true because of itself, and logical axioms are intrinsically metaphysically true and thus epistemologically self-evident.

One's memory is either accurate or not, in spite of how this cannot be verified by non-omniscient beings.  It would be circular reasoning to think that one's memory is accurate because one remembers it to be--it is not self-necessarily true or necessarily true in light or any other knowable fact that my memories of events are accurate.  Logically necessary truths dictate the nature of memory either way, since they are necessary truths, such as how having a memory does not prove more than that the potentially misleading memory exists.  Obviously, using words to define words or having to at some point reuse words in ways that are linguistically circular when explaining terms does not mean one is actually denying any logical necessities about such things, or believing in assumptions.  Language is an arbitrary construct as it is, so there is no such thing as inherent meaning to a linguistic sound or symbol anyway, however socially entrenched it is.  The intentions of the speaker/writer determine the meaning of their words.  Words are therefore simply exchanged either by fools who think they can know with absolute (true) certainty what others mean by their words or by those who knowingly use them as what they are: a fallible, epistemologically unverifiable, but probabilistically useful way to convey concepts, feelings, and intentions.

The circularity does not matter here.  With the words used by oneself, one can know exactly what is meant by them, since a person's own mental states, which encompass their thoughts and intentions, cannot be illusory as long as they make no assumptions and look to logic.  A person who makes no assumptions cannot seem to have a thought or intention without actually having it, or else it could not seem to themself that they are experiencing it.  No, I do not know if looking at a chair or a bush means it actually exists outside of my consciousness, but I cannot be misperceiving the fact that I am perceiving it, because what is perceived is what is perceived.  One's own mind, along with the logically necessary truths that metaphysically govern and transcend it, is a refuge of absolute certainty for those who do not make assumptions.  No matter what words I use to linguistically define logically necessary truths, sensory experiences, physical objects, my thoughts and feelings, and so on, I do not have to succumb to circular reasoning.

That is up to each person to avoid since it is within their power to go in either direction.  Human communication is imperfect because definitions, even from a purely rationalistic person, are still arbitrary and incomplete since words are constructs without inherent meaning, and since definitions always involve words that can only be defined with other definitions or have to fall back on synonyms to escape this.  For this and other reasons, like the inability to actually see into the other party's thoughts, communication between non-telepathic beings never involves anything more than probabilistic evidence for what the other person means.