Firstly, I should mention that I am not sure, whether this the right place to ask such a question, but I am trying it anyway. Furthermore, one could say I come from a mathematics background and I am not familiar with common terminology in philosophy or linguistics for that matter. Also my English might be lacking at times, but please bear with me.
I am under the impression, that many words that people use, especially those describing "immaterial objects", like "peace" or "justice", are not universally defined in a way, that everyone accepts. Let me try to explain this with an example:
Once, in our philosophy class in school, the following question was asked:
"How can we achieve world peace?"
I roughly answered:
"Well, one way is to kill all people, then there can be no more war." Of course this was meant mostly as a joke, but I still thought of it as valid answer. However, as expected, (at least some) people disagreed with me, saying that if there are no people left, then this can hardly be called "peace". It raises the question: Is my definition of peace wrong? My belief is, that it is not. I think the problem is just that we have no real definition of what peace is, so people use them same word to describe different things. Those things might have many properties in common (in this case the "absence of war"), but others may differ or one definition is more general then the other. My first question is:
Is this a justified believe to have?
It does not stop here though. As a result of such a "misunderstanding" people sometimes start discussing, what a term "has" to mean. For example, so people would say "Band X is not a true metal band at all, because something something". But how can this be true at all? After all, no one ever defined, what "metal music" is. It feels to me as if one party is simply trying to convince the other party to redefine the words, they are using. My latter question is:
Is there any point in discussing the meaning of words other then avoiding misunderstandings?