Do you thing that’s a good definition of a shoe? — Benj96
A good definition is that which describes something discretely, that is to say it doesn’t omit any characteristics about said thing, it perfectly encapsulates the existence of said thing. Nothing is possible for that thing outside of its definition. — Benj96
Mathematics & science are quite well-known for the quality of their definitions — Agent Smith
For me, definition means to place separations/ delineations, limitations or parameters around a concept or thing which divides it into A “the defined” - the content within the parameters, and B “all other things” ie. “it” and “not it”. Definitions separate things by character or relationship to one another. By “contrast” essentially. — Benj96
If I take the word “everything” how do I define it? You cannot “divide” the concept of “everything” as it is parameterless. Any parameter to u try to place around the set/ content is also included in the set/content.
Similarly you cannot define nothing as it’s contentless. You can’t place a parameter around an empty set. — Benj96
Another issue I see in defining is the idea of a good definition verses a bad definition.
A good definition is that which describes something discretely, that is to say it doesn’t omit any characteristics about said thing, it perfectly encapsulates the existence of said thing. Nothing is possible for that thing outside of its definition. — Benj96
Is a good definition then really one where no assumptions have to made? — Benj96
What then do all the millions of shoes in the world have in common? Some are graphics on paper or in media, some are described concepts from peoples minds and some are on your feet but all of them can be defined easily by anyone as a “shoe.” — Benj96
The most accurate definition of a shoe could be said to be “something”. — Benj96
On forums like this it is often necessary not to assume your take on some seemingly mundane concept/idea is the same as someone else’s. Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague. — I like sushi
As you rightly pointed out, no definition is perfect except maybe mathematical and scientific ones — Agent Smith
Defining is a habit of atomisation maybe? On forums like this it is often necessary not to assume your take on some seemingly mundane concept/idea is the same as someone else’s. Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague. The ‘hits’ you get you know yourself. Sometimes just one hit helps you move forward and sometimes multiple hits just means you are just saying what other people say. — I like sushi
fuzzy and because of that our definitions fall short of the mark. No fault of ours if this is the case, oui? — Agent Smith
But the most significant properties are conveyed, based on the most common usage. — Relativist
Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague — I like sushi
Graphics on paper are not shoes, they are images. Images of shoes. — T Clark
distinctions — T Clark
Mistaking words for the world is a common problem with philosophy. — T Clark
The minute you speak about it you divide it. Is that what you're getting at? — T Clark
I disagreed with a lot of what you wrote, but it's still an interesting thread about an important subject. — T Clark
Yes but show an image of a shoe to anyone and they will immediately Manifest in the minds eye the functions properties and nature of a shoe or their understanding of what a shoe is. They won’t think of “images” just in the same way that when you see a shoe you don’t think of “vision”. It is the subject not the medium of communication. — Benj96
Can you define without making distinctions? — Benj96
However I don’t see what point there is in clarifying that words are not the real world because if we cannot apply language to the world we cannot gather communal information about anything. — Benj96
If an object doesn’t have a name for its existence then what exactly do we understand it to be? In this way I think distinction and definition is synonymous. TVs have high definition images not high distinction images - although it could be used interchangeably because vision is the ability to “define” contrasts in light perception. To define is to distinguish. — Benj96
As you rightly pointed out, no definition is perfect except maybe mathematical and scientific ones
— Agent Smith — Hillary
It depends what exactly you mean but yes in a general sense I think most things are not clear cut and discrete but rather a more flexible spectrum of transition in which a certain level of bias or interpretation must be made.
For example using the previous example we could say a shoe is a piece of footwear you wear to walk or make a fashion statement. However when one considers repurposing and lateral thinking a shoe can indeed function in many ways - it can be a container for plants, a missile to throw at someone when you’re annoyed, something symbolic like the shoes that hang on telephone wires where drugs are sold, it could be part of a sculpture or art installation in a gallery, or could be worn comically by different animals - cats dogs etc. The list is endless. Yet we can’t afford to spend time defining every possible way a shoe can exist or function even though the possibilities are vast. This applies to most objects and thus yes the world is “fuzzy” indeed — Benj96
Thoughts? — Benj96
Hence definitions don't tell you anything new. They are overrated. — Banno
1. Essential properties - These are properties which are absolutely necessary to the word. A tree is a plant. — Philosophim
2. Accidental properties - Properties that the definition can contain, but are not essential to its identity. "A tree can have branches". — Philosophim
Linguistic isn't science, it's not meant to understand the world but to make categories of elements in the world so that we can communicate. — Skalidris
The only issue I have with this is the regression of definitions. Ie. A tree is a plant, a plant is a living thing a living thing is ... at so forth all of which by your reasoning has some previous essential property contained within the next. So what is “thee” essential property in the first place? — Benj96
Are there trees without branches? — Benj96
Yes. If I trim all the branches off of a tree, its a "tree without branches". — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.