Is "commensurability" the right word to use?
WordNet 2.0 defines "commensurability" differently. This definition is "able to be measured by a common standard; 'hours and minutes are commensurable'". My supervisors thought that my usage of commensurability was reasonable at the time that I was writing my thesis. However, I have grown very conscientious over the years about not using words without regard to what they actually mean, and I know that in some cases I definitely used words in an incorrect way. Some philosophers can really play silly buggers with words--such as Ayn Rand--and end up relying on arguments that rest on equivocations.
Can I, therefore, reconcile my definition of commensurability with the one that is found in the dictionary? Well, a claim that conduces to a non-coercive convergence of opinion is able to be measured by a common standard. That is, a claim that conduces to a non-coercive convergence of opinion between person A and person B is able to be measured by a common standard, that of rational discourse. This is because it is rational discourse that enables anyone to arrive at a non-coercive convergence of opinion. The more commensurable a claim is to rational discourse, therefore, the more conducive it is to a non-coercive convergence of opinion. The degrees by which it is commensurable to rational discourse, therefore, can be measured by means of my six distinct levels.
Admittedly, this is a very specific kind of commensurability, and I am sure that many others are possible. But this one is all that I require for my purposes.
Can I, therefore, reconcile my definition of commensurability with the one that is found in the dictionary? Well, a claim that conduces to a non-coercive convergence of opinion is able to be measured by a common standard. That is, a claim that conduces to a non-coercive convergence of opinion between person A and person B is able to be measured by a common standard, that of rational discourse. This is because it is rational discourse that enables anyone to arrive at a non-coercive convergence of opinion. The more commensurable a claim is to rational discourse, therefore, the more conducive it is to a non-coercive convergence of opinion. The degrees by which it is commensurable to rational discourse, therefore, can be measured by means of my six distinct levels.
Admittedly, this is a very specific kind of commensurability, and I am sure that many others are possible. But this one is all that I require for my purposes.
Comments