For many people knowing is simply having the definition of something. This may not be true of all things, but it is especially true when we speak of immaterial objects,
knowledge of these immaterial objects called ideas (justice, beauty, wisdom, etc.)
Yes. People like to fall for making themselves into an idea (an immaterial thing) and carrying these labels (nouns) in front of them like flags. For example, they say of themselves that they are feminists or optimists or nihilists etc., but indeed they confuse the (attempted) definition of ideas with (proven) knowledge.
If they were to be being first, they would realise that "feminist", for example, basically means nothing. "Feminism" is an empty word, devoid of any meaning, because a woman cannot become a feminist because she already is (female). If I am a woman, I am female and do not need to be a feminist. Everyone can see that I am a woman. Everyone who talks to me and about me refers to me as "she" (has said, has whispered etc.).
This linguistic circularity becomes even clearer when we say that "men are masculine." There can be no masculinists because it is merely a circular matter to attribute manhood to the masculine. The dictionary is language that refers to itself synonymously and uses different terms to describe one and the same figure.
Funny how we have plenty of "feminists" but not a single "masculinist", isn't it? Just now the translation autocorrect tried to make this word into "machinist". LoL
Philosophy and its great thinkers - I agree with you one hundred percent - is better to be understood as an act of dialogue. Within which the involved ones try to near themselves towards a certain matter which actually matters most between the two of them right then and there.
I learned to insist on definitions with objects. Something I was being a bit lax with in past times.
Yes. I actually make a distinction between real ideas, such as "truth", "beauty", etc., and those that are created by humans, "feminism", "masculinism" :), etc.
Yes, and what surprises me is that if you look up a word in the dictionary, you have to already know its meaning so that you can learn it. That is, if you look up the word "chair", and the definition is "seat with backrest", you can only know the meaning of "chair" if you already know beforehand the meaning of "seat with backrest". So with the dictionary you end up not learning the meaning of something, since you already had to know it, but only its "name".
Indeed, it is primarily an act of dialogue. I agree.
Thanks for stopping by and comment!