back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 14100

[from 'Metaphysical Dependence' by Gideon Rosen, in 2. Reason / D. Definition / 1. Definitions ]

Full Idea

From the simple fact that '1' figures in the definition of '2', it does not follow that 1 is part of 2.

Gist of Idea

Figuring in the definition of a thing doesn't make it a part of that thing

Source

Gideon Rosen (Metaphysical Dependence [2010], 10)

Book Reference

'Modality', ed/tr. Hale,B/Hoffman,A [OUP 2010], p.125


A Reaction

He observes that quite independent things can be mentioned on the two sides of a definition, with no parthood relation. You begin to wonder what a definition really is. A causal chain?