Fitness of what? If you mean the genes, then a gene may have more copies made of it if it causes some of its carriers to assist other carriers of the same genes in ways that help them produce, rather than reproducing individually.
I described fitness of genes, yes. Previously it seemed like you were saying that an individual of a species had low(zero) fitness if that individual doesn’t reproduce. Further, you seemed to imply that this was the relevant measure, seemingly to say so as a counterpoint to the point that an individual can act in a way that helps to propagate genes that that individual carries without actually reproducing.
It appears that some miscommunication occurred, which may have been me being dense or misinterpreting. Do you know where this miscommunication occurred?
The word “word”, as usually used, is not a term which is defined to only apply to things which have definitions.
Generally one can describe how people use a word. (Though, see “semantic primes”; there has to be some cycles in what words are defined using what words.)
I think the quotations around “define” were intentional in the comment you replied to. I think their point wasn’t to say something like the “undefinability of truth” paradox (the whole “truth is in the metalanguage” thing), but to say that it seemed to them that you were kind of sneaking in assumptions as part of definitions, or something like that, idk.
