>It is right to appeal to sense rather than definition in this instance, because I said so. Latin is so valuable as a language precisely because it is "dead" and the meanings, understandings, and connotations of its words do not change. This is one reason why retaining Latin in the Mass is so important (another reason being it is one of the three languages nailed above the head of our Lord, and thus has tremendous power). Nietzsche was a philologist, which is why he was such a good thinker (even though his conclusions were tainted by the false premises he was raised on, namely a merely heretical sense of Christianity). He knew the original usage of words, and the etymologies of words, and the original usage of the words in which other words were etymologically rooted. My point is that it is irresponsible to change the meanings of words around and sever oneself from original meanings, from etymology, and the meaning / insight offered by the words upon which other words are based. It just renders discussion / debate more difficult. Are ideas the products of words, or are words images of ideas? I think anyone who has ever had a thought but "couldn't put it into words" knows that the latter is the case. Thus they are tools, and while this gives us certain flexibility, there are also constraints on the most efficient usage of them. Ultimately the definitions of things are determined by essences, not names - names, indeed, are but nominal labels applied to essences. And unless we really want to argue there is no essence of "triangularity", then I think my position is justified. @Chiro @KingOfWhiteAmerica