Clear speech

I believe that following the rules below would make philosophical discussions clearer. The layout of this post is meant to make it easier to enact these rules as laws in a discussion forum.

1. Do not use “evidence” as a concrete noun

Rule: Do not ask for “evidence” of something, say that there is “evidence” for something, or say that “evidence” supports something. Speak, instead, of “reasons” to believe something.

You may use “evidence” as an abstract noun, meaning the quality of being “evident”.

Explanation: Talk of “evidence” biases discussions toward empiricism, because it heavily implies that the reasons to believe a statement are expected to be empirical data.

2. Do not refer to propositions as “intuitions”

Rule: Do not refer to any propositions or beliefs as “intuitions”, except when quoting or paraphrasing someone else. Say it in other words. For instance: “belief”, “opinion”, “clear and distinct conception”, “unprovable proposition”, “innate belief”...

Explanation: The word “intuition” is hopelessly ambiguous, and too often a rhetorical trick, used to falsely imply that a proposition is evident.

3. Do not speak of unqualified “needs”

Rule: Do not speak of “need” without saying what a thing is needed for. Do not speak of persons having “needs”.

Explanation: The idea of “needs” is too unclear to use.

4. Do not express emotions

Rule: Do not say how you feel, or how anyone feels, about anything, unless it is a part of a quotation which cannot be omitted. Adjectives such as “shocking” or “pleasant” are part of this.

Explanation: The passions are enemies to reason. No one feels emotions and does philosophy at the same time.

5. Do not use figures of speech unexplained

Rule: Do not use similes, metaphors, and analogies to sensible things, without immediately explaining what is meant by them in more abstract language.

Explanation: The senses are enemies to reason. No one uses his imagination and does philosophy at the same time.

6. Mark sentences that express analytic judgments as such (Added 2022-06-22)

Rule: If you mean a sentence to express an analytic rather than a synthetic judgment, use a phrase such as “by nature” or “by definition” to mark it as such.

Explanation: When unmarked, all sentences could be meant as either analytic or synthetic, and the ambiguity is best avoided, since this makes a difference as to whether they are true.