Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280
Unfortunately for this argument, words have meanings and definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visionary
See number 4, the only one that applies to this use of the word visionary:
"having or marked by foresight and imagination"
Too bad that you can't just decide a word means whatever you want it too or else what you said might just be a valid argument. Don't even try to argue that language is subjective either because the very fact that you understand what I am saying right now means its not. If words have varying meaning then there is no way we could understand each other, everyone would be speaking their own unique language.
My "view" only applied to the idea that the two words are opposite, not the definitions of the words. Since, outside of extremely concrete concepts like mathematical theory, its nearly impossible to define the word "opposite" (i.e. what is the opposite of creation? Is it destruction? Is it nothingness? Is it a void?) and since there can only be one opposite to any one concept, it is a point open to subjective debate. Unlike the meaning of words which is not open to debate since language would be useless without shared meanings. |
You don't have to break out Merriam Webster. I was never talking about the dictionary definition of a word. I am pointing out that it's a word for which the use will be disputed by different people. It's
subject to people's individual ideas of what is and isn't visionary -- the
meaning of the word being constant, yes. Its use, no. One critic's "visionary" is another critic's "uninspired." It's like so many other descriptive words, such as "ugly." The definition of ugly is clear (or at least I hope I don't have to quote a dictionary!) Yet it's a highly subjective term. Get the difference? The word "traditional" isn't used in the same way. You haven't disputed this.