The Philosophical Lexicon

by Daniel C. Dennett (Editor)

The Philosophical Lexicon is a humorous dictionary founded by philosopher Daniel Dennett and now edited by Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen. It lists neologisms that have been humorously coined from the names of (mostly) contemporary philosophers. For example, the following definition refers to the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine:

quine, v. (1) To deny resolutely the existence or importance of something real or significant. "Some philosophers have quined classes, and some have even quined physical objects." Occasionally used intr., e.g., "You think I quine, sir. I assure you I do not!" (2) n. The total aggregate sensory surface of the world; hence quinitis, irritation of the equine.

[Digital version hosted at the Digital Library of the University of Tufts.]

Genres: Philosophy

19 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1987

About the author

Daniel Clement Dennett III was a prominent philosopher whose research centered on philosophy of mind, science, and biology, particularly as they relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He was the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett was a noted atheist, avid sailor, and advocate of the Brights movement.

Dennett received his B.A. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1963, where he was a student of W.V.O. Quine. In 1965, he received his D.Phil. from Christ Church, Oxford, where he studied under the ordinary language philosopher Gilbert Ryle.

Dennett gave the John Locke lectures at the University of Oxford in 1983, the Gavin David Young Lectures at Adelaide, Australia, in 1985, and the Tanner Lecture at Michigan in 1986, among many others. In 2001 he was awarded the Jean Nicod Prize, giving the Jean Nicod Lectures in Paris. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987. He was the co-founder (1985) and co-director of the Curricular Software Studio at Tufts University, and has helped to design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston. He was a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Reviews

[Śamīk Malla · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The pantheon of philosophy," or so says this side-splitting satire, "has contributed precious little to the English language, compared with other fields." Here's an attempt to remedy this unfortunate situation, felling modern philosophers with its discerning wit and withering pundamentalism. The entire affair has been consummately platonic, of course, and it is only to be desired that at least a few of these gems find a new life in the popular imagination. Heart-warmingly, the editor has not spared himself either. Consider this:

kripke, adj. Not understood, but considered brilliant. "I hate to admit it, but found his remarks quite kripke."

Or, this:

chomsky, adj. Said of a theory that draws extravagant metaphysical implications from scientifically established facts. "Essentially, Hume's criticism of the Argument from Design is that it leads in all its forms to blatantly chomsky conclusions."
"The conclusions drawn from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are not only on average chomskier than those drawn from Godel's theorem; most of them are downright merleau-ponty."

Or, indeed, this:

marcuse, v. To criticize vehemently from a Marxist perspective. "Je marcuse!"- J.P. Sartre.

Positively Machiavellian, I say.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 5 out of 5]

For some reason I stumbled on this brilliant work again. I had read it many years ago. And like I said in the comment to the other review, I sometimes quote from it.

It is a lexicon on invented philosophical terms, all named after 20th century philosophers. (Dennett and his contributors loosened the criteria later.) It is witty and sometimes hilarious. And of course, as a philosopher, you enjoy the fact that 95% of the content does not make sense to 98% of mankind.

And naturally it is best when it is nasty: foucault, n. A howler, an insane mistake. "I'm afraid I've committed an egregious foucault."

chomsky, adj. Said of a theory that draws extravagant metaphysical implications from scientifically established facts. "Essentially, Hume's criticism of the Argument from Design is that it leads in all its forms to blatantly chomsky conclusions."

Sadly, this wonderful work does not seem to get updated anymore. So I asked ChatGPT (3.5) for some new entries. Chat did not know the work but needed only one example to grasp the idea:

hintikka, n. A measure of belief, the smallest logically discernible difference between beliefs; "He argued with me all night, but did not alter my beliefs one hintikka."

So I gave hume (hume, pron. (1) Indefinite personal and relative pronoun, presupposing no referent. Useful esp. in writing solipsistic treatises, sc. "to hume it may concern.") this prompt:

- I wonder if you could come up with a similar humorous definition, e.g. about the Philosopher David Chalmers or James Conant?

And I got this:

Certainly! Here are a couple of humorous definitions inspired by the philosophers David Chalmers and James Conant:

chalmersian, adj. - A state of perplexity induced by pondering the nature of consciousness; "After reading Chalmers' works on the hard problem of consciousness, I found myself in a chalmersian daze for days."

conantastic, adj. - Describing the feeling of being simultaneously amused and bewildered by the complexities of language and its philosophical implications; "Trying to decipher the nuances of language games left me in a conantastic state of mind."

Maybe not as good as some of the other entries, but not bad at all.

[Seth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mix of wordplay based on philosophers' names and humorous references to their ideas. The best entries do both while being mostly self-explanatory, e.g.:

searley, adj. Contemptuous of leftist political thought, because of presumed lack of rigor.

Others are in-jokes that are completely lost on me, despite my being reasonably familiar with analytic philosophy, sometimes referencing other entries for added inscrutability, e.g.:

wej, n. The sign of disjohnson.

What does this mean? Why is it supposed to be funny? Your guess is as good as mine. Common wisdom holds that explaining a joke kills it, but I think esoteric academic humor is an exception to the rule, and this lexicon would have benefited from some etymological notes.