I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to indicate that you didn't I was just making rhetorical comment that the reason for the thread was to acknowledge that, and that it is important for people to acknowledge that.

Regardless, I think that in most cases, it is understandable to use the commonly accepted meaning of the word, then simply work out any confusion if it comes up. I think it would be too tedious to type in a fashion where you explain every single possible word that might result in confusion.

For example, if you say the word "ass", it is assumed that you're using profanity. If there is confusion, where someone thinks you're talking about a donkey, I think it is easy enough to work that out when the confusion appears.

The only places you really need to avoid are places where the new definition of the word is likely to be confused with the old definition. An example of this is the word "democracy." The word "democracy" has always described any government where the political power lies is held by the people. There are good democracies and bad democracies. A bad democracy may put no check on the power of the majority, leading to tyranny. Or maybe the people don't believe in freedom.

Recently there has been an effort to change the meaning of the word "democracy" to describe only good democracies: bad democracies wouldn't be called "democracy" anymore. This sort of change is very problematic, because the new meaning of the word would be very easily confused with the old one. This will certainly result in misinterpretation of readings talking about bad democracies. And further, it confuses situations present-day situations like the Iraq War. When Bush says he is bringing "democracy" to Iraq, it is thought a good thing. But I argue that although Bush has brought democracy, it is a bad democracy.

Comparing "theocracy" to what I've said, it is true that the new meaning of the word could be confused with the old one. But I don't think that "theocracy" originally meant "direct rule by God." Although the word "theocracy", when broken into its individual parts, literally means "rule by God", as far as I know, the term has never meant direct rule by God. I think its always been used to mean "rule by any religious authority." If I'm correct in this, then it is those who say that theocracy means "direct rule by God" who are confusing the term. Am I mistaken?

I agree with you. It's an instance where it is easier to call America a democracy (which it isn't), then it is to explain the meaning of a Democratic Republic (which it is).

To be fair there are civilizations that believed they were a theocracy, ancient Egypt for example. So one could call them a theocracy since they thought the pharaoh was the Sun King and a living God. There have been other similar cultures, but I am a materialist so I don't believe a theocracy is in fact possible. I like to use precise terms when I talk about these things. Also in the case of Puritans the pastors were not allowed to hold government office but the government and the churches worked together to provide order and the laws were Biblically based which is a Theonomy, but not a Theocracy since the ministers were not in power. Not everyone feels the need to be this precise, and I did mention in the other thread that I thought this was making me come off a bit pedantic. In normal conversation I'd let it go, but when debating religion and religious governments I feel that is when these distinctions are appropriate.

This is true, and in everyday chit-chat is fine, if we were to be debating government types or discussing political theory however I think it becomes useful to be more specific.

Completely agreed.

By the way, this thread is in no way a bashing, it's more that your post inspired me...

No offense taken, I know how I can come off sometimes, especially when you can't hear my tone of voice. You know I don't seriously correct everything people say in normal conversation... Peter does that.

I know, but I wasn't sure if everyone knew. I don't want people to think you are a "know-it-all" ass. You simply got me thinking. Which is the purpose of this site.

I doubt that you starting this thread would make anyone think that Solon is a know-it-all. If someone thinks this then what you say won't change it.

Personally, I experience Solon as a person who appreciates the cultivation of a fine mind.

He certainly is. He is by far one of the best and brightest and bravest men I have ever known.