more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Strictly speaking no concept given a priori can be defined, e.g. substance, cause, right, equity, etc.
Gist of Idea
No a priori concept can be defined
Source
Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason [1781], B756/A728)
Book Ref
Kant,Immanuel: 'Critique of Pure Reason', ed/tr. Guyer,P /Wood,A W [CUO 1998], p.638
A Reaction
A passing remark with large and interesting implications. A huge amount of ink has been spilled over whether to take concepts such as identity, truth, goodness and substance as 'basic', or reduce them to something else.
| 602 | Some fools think you cannot define anything, but only say what it is like [Antisthenes (I), by Aristotle] |
| 5619 | No a priori concept can be defined [Kant] |
| 22201 | The use of mathematical-style definitions in philosophy is fruitless and harmful [Husserl] |
| 14115 | Definition by analysis into constituents is useless, because it neglects the whole [Russell] |
| 14159 | In mathematics definitions are superfluous, as they name classes, and it all reduces to primitives [Russell] |
| 12619 | We have no successful definitions, because they all use indefinable words [Fodor] |
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| 12585 | Most people can't even define a chair [Peacocke] |
| 14981 | Philosophical concepts are rarely defined, and are not understood by means of definitions [Sider] |
| 15015 | It seems possible for a correct definition to be factually incorrect, as in defining 'contact' [Sider] |
| 20391 | Feminists warn that ideologies use timeless objective definitions as a tool of repression [Davies,S] |