more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 9331

[filed under theme 2. Reason / D. Definition / 13. Against Definition ]

Full Idea

How are we to determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition?

Gist of Idea

How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition?

Source

Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §2)

Book Ref

'New Essays on the A Priori', ed/tr. Boghossian,P /Peacocke,C [OUP 2000], p.151


A Reaction

Nice question. If I say 'philosophy is the love of wisdom' and 'philosophy bores me', why should one be part of its definition and the other not? What if I stipulated that the second one is part of my definition, and the first one isn't?


The 11 ideas with the same theme [pursuit of definition is hopeless or pointless]:

Some fools think you cannot define anything, but only say what it is like [Antisthenes (I), by Aristotle]
No a priori concept can be defined [Kant]
The use of mathematical-style definitions in philosophy is fruitless and harmful [Husserl]
Definition by analysis into constituents is useless, because it neglects the whole [Russell]
In mathematics definitions are superfluous, as they name classes, and it all reduces to primitives [Russell]
We have no successful definitions, because they all use indefinable words [Fodor]
How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich]
Most people can't even define a chair [Peacocke]
Philosophical concepts are rarely defined, and are not understood by means of definitions [Sider]
It seems possible for a correct definition to be factually incorrect, as in defining 'contact' [Sider]
Feminists warn that ideologies use timeless objective definitions as a tool of repression [Davies,S]