rationalskepticism.org

ughaibu wrote:

jamest wrote:I'm obviously talking about a coherent definition acceptable to philosophers.

And as noted, this problem applies to plenty of terms. This is why we should clearly define the terms that we use in our arguments.

ughaibu, you are making the fatal error of assuming that there is a first principle, which you call "defining the terms". But when someone's argument is entirely circular, there is no first principle. Where is the beginning of a circle? James is embarking on the latest incarnation of his ontological fairground carousel. Round and round we go.