Definitions

    A lot of people get really bent-out-of-shape over definitions. We're constantly fighting amongst ourselves about what is or isn't a part of something's meaning, especially when trying to use them as a baseline for our arguments.

    Some of us stick solely to the word of a reputable source of information like Oxford Dictionary or Merriam-Webster, and others base them more on colloquial understandings from the various communities they're a part of. Either way, definitions as a whole have stirred up enough trouble even in my own debates to the point that I feel like they warrant their own discussion. Are they... subjective? Absolute? Can they change, or are we just incorrect about them until we find/consider more information? Definitions are the way we classify everything around us, so it's important that they be precise -- right?

    The other day my dad was helping me move into my new house (titled the "Jav House" for insider reasons) where I'll be living for the next few years with a couple of friends. My dad and I often have pretty great chats about the ins and outs of modern society, and he's never shy to ponder philosophical or controversial topics. Being the younger generation, I typically reside a little closer toward the progressive end of the spectrum while he heirs a bit on the side of tradition (though he's never close-minded).

    Anyway, on this particular day, we were discussing the idea of gay marriage -- not whether or not it should be allowed, but whether or not it should be called marriage at all. His point: the traditional definition of 'marriage' is the religious binding of man and woman; thus, it does not encompass the legal unification of any two partners (regardless of gender); therefore, the latter should have a different word to span that definition, like 'unification' or something.

    Now, before you protest, we did a little bit of research and found out that documentation of marriage actually goes back to around 2350 BCE and wasn't originally associated with any religion at all -- but it really got me thinking at the moment, ya'know? Even though he was ultimately incorrect about the roots of marriage, a fantastic point arose from the conversation: has the definition of marriage changed over time, or were people just incorrectly using the term long enough for it to become an everlasting misconception? My father seemed to believe that it was the latter, but I argued his point in two ways.

    Numero uno: the colloquial approach (or the practical approach). Take a close look at the (contemporary) colloquial understanding of marriage: people who love one another make their love official. I'm aware that this isn't always the reasoning behind marriage, but this is still its generally-understood description regardless of any 'official' words. Who the hell is going to back the petition to change 'marriage' to 'unification', especially when only involving a non-heterosexual couple? If those two people want to make their love official, they know that 'marriage' is the thing to get it done. I'm sure there are a lot of nuances to marriage that taint the edges of this specific example, but try to focus on the bigger picture: regardless of "traditional" definitions, people will always gravitate to their colloquial understanding of a matter in order to define it. And, since definitions are a construct by the people for the people, it's thus fair to say that there has been a change in the definition when a large enough majority believes it to be different.

    This brings me to my second argument, an opinion I'd only formed there in that conversation: definitions do change! It's important, however, to define what kind of change is undergone. Specifically, definitions broaden. There will always be an ounce of originality present in any word -- enough to address the topic that the word is dealing with -- but the specifications are capable of loosening as time moves forward. Let me explain what I mean; take the word 'war' for example: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" (Merriam-Webster). When the first war broke loose, perhaps its definition wasn't so broad! Maybe the definition itself declared that physical weapons must be used, like fists or sticks or swords or bows & arrows. As the world moved forward, though, war began to change. Hell, nowadays, we can fight wars digitally! The definition broadened with time, but no one would argue that warfare involving chemicals is no longer warfare because it features elements outside of the original definition. No, war broadened in meaning, and thus additional descriptors were then required in order to specify the type. Chemical warfare. Naval warfare.

    So, should we go back on what we've started and dub non-heterosexual marriage something like the unbelievably vague 'unification', hoping that the word just catches on? ... Absolutely not. The definition of 'marriage' was able to broaden to its present lodging, and we now have the freedom to add specifiers like gay or straight in order to signify what we mean. We'd have long run out of words if definitions weren't able to change.

    I'm a real big believer that all things are quantifiable, but not necessarily calculatable. Seriously, think about this: there is someone on this planet whose taste in movies is more like yours than anyone else. In fact, there's someone on the planet who is more like you than anyone else, and someone who is less like you than anyone else. Who could these people possibly be, and even if you found them, how would you measure your differences? You... wouldn't find them. And you certainly wouldn't be able to measure your similarities numerically. The mathematical relationships exist, but our human brains couldn't ever know how to find them.

    Definitions are the same. Perhaps there really is one, absolute, all-encompassing definition for each and every matter, but it would require so many specifiers and mathematically-correct statements that all of humanity will have come and gone before we even found one of them. Time is the ultimate changer of things, and to define something absolutely would thus require taking time into account. Take the device that you're watching this on, for instance. Define it. It's made up of each of its parts, which likely come from places around the world that produce those parts. Those places extracted those parts from the Earth, and if you go back far enough, each and every one of them was just a mass of particles, chemical elements floating about the Final Frontier. Even we, as smart as we think we are, were just bits of rock floating around in space at some point. You'd have to know something's entire story, from the dawn of the universe to its end, in order to define it. And even then, how would you separate each thing from one another? Who knows, maybe you and I both came from the same floating rock from the dawn of time! Point is, there's no such thing as an "absolute" definition. We're all just oddly-shaped pieces of the single, complicated thing that is the universe, and so is everything else. Definitions will always be subjective. By the people, for the people, as I said before.

    If you're still not convinced, I'd like you to ponder how anything learns. Be it a human child, a kitten, or even an advancing AI, how do we grow to understand what things are? You have a five-year-old son -- congratulations! He would like you to define 'dog' to him so that he's not embarrassed at school anymore when people ask him why he doesn't know what a dog is. How do you go about teaching him? "Yes, son, a dog is a quadruped with fur, known for their tamability and who are commonly acquired as pets"? No. Ah, perhaps you'd define it by its taxonomy! Pretty good solution, if moving forward you're able to use taxonomy as your source of truth for all things, regardless of their biotics. To learn, we must experience. You'd probably just show your kid some pictures of dogs, and over time, he would learn to recognize them based on the information he'd gathered. The meaning of 'dog' or anything else extends beyond the written definition and is only able to be learned by subjective experience.

    The next time you're in an argument and someone draws the 'definition' card as a counterpoint, break down the disputed word into more digestible pieces that you can agree upon before bringing it back in. To continue to advance as a species, we must be willing to challenge old definitions and even expand upon them either for the pursuit of knowledge or for the sake of progress. Remember that we each learn subjectively, that only everything is absolute, not anything. Everything changes and definitions grow, and maybe Oxford Dictionary isn't always the best place to find the meaning of everything in our lives.