The Problem with Definitions

Alright, I’ve got a question about something that doesn't seem to be getting much attention in this thread.
Do you guys think it's actually possible to define terms? Like, can we define everything, or just certain things? Which ones? And more importantly, is even doing this necessary—and if so, why? For instance, should we bother defining what "good" actually means? Should we be aiming for a real-world definition or just a linguistic one?
I'm specifically talking about the debate that's been raging since the 50s: the clash between essentialism (running from the old-school Aristotle approach of genus proximum and differentia specifica, all the way to Kirkland and his family resemblance theory) and anti-essentialism (on one side, Mr. Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblances, and on the other, all that postmodernist rambling about how everything is just text). I'm curious to hear what you all think.

Alright, since I’m stepping up to be the first one to chime in here,
I’ll try my best to make this as clear as possible, 🙂

Look, you can attempt to define just about anything, but true definition is an impossible feat. It’s simply because the map—the definition itself—is never actually the territory it’s trying to represent. The map is not the territory.

🙂

The sign says: This is not a pipe.

🙂

SILENCE AT THE OBJECTIVE LEVEL - SILENCE AT THE OBJECTIVE LEVEL
by Henry Landier

There’s a table,
there’s a wall,
and there’s a heart.
Looking out at the world,
I see this thing I label a "table,"
and this thing I call a "wall."
Reaching inward,
I sense this thing I name a "heart."

But it isn't really "a table,"
it isn't truly "a wall,"
nor is it actually "a heart."
Shh... then what is it?

The thing is, to even recognize that stuff,
I needed the labels "table" and "wall."
To experience that feeling,
I needed the concept of a "heart."
When I No Longer Have "table" and "wall,"
When I No Longer Have "form" and "background,"
What Do I See Outside?
When I No Longer Have "heart"
What Do I Feel Inside?

So, tell me, do you realize
what actually happens
When I No Longer Have "outside,"
when the distinction between "inside" vanishes,
when the very idea of "I" disappears,
when...?

🙂

Can we actually compare the relationship between a definition and a concept—specifically, defining a concept—to mapping out territory? I’m thinking more along the lines of evaluating whether a specific map accurately represents a given piece of land. A concept refers to an object or idea (though there are plenty of diverse theories regarding language and concepts), but I’m asking about the definition of that concept, not the thing itself. Besides, once you factor in descriptive versus evaluative terms, this whole map-and-territory analogy starts to fall apart. Not to mention that definitions come in all sorts of varieties.
Here’s my take. For descriptive concepts, like those involving biological species, let’s look at Kirkland: Water = H2O. For evaluative ones, the problem gets much messier, but also way more interesting. What actually constitutes "moral" or "good"? Which specific action can truly be labeled as good? If we don't establish a definition, everyone just uses these terms however they please, which leads to a total mess where the exact same act could be called both moral and immoral...

Smith&Jones Co. said:Do you guys actually think it's possible to define terms, or what?

I don't think language allows for it. Think of language as this messy, irregular web where concepts are just nodes. When you try to define one, you're really just looking at how it connects to all its neighboring nodes. If that's the case, you can't define a single concept without defining every single adjacent node and the connections between them. You'd essentially need to map out the entire network just to get one definition. And since language is constantly shifting, new threads and new nodes are always being added, which means we never actually have a stable definition to hold onto. This whole mess could be solved if we could just pin down certain "basic" or "referential" terms and express everything through them, but honestly, I can't for the life of me think of a criteria for deciding which terms would count as "basic"...

Philosophy of language is always a blast. 🍿

Philosophy of language is quite entertaining.

To be honest, perhaps it is time you started studying it, as your transcript suggests you lack even a basic understanding of the subject.

Without a definition, every single concept is basically useless..
This is actually more of a linguistics question than a philosophical one. Philosophy just tends to cloud things up, which is why people call it the king of subjects, I guess... whatever..

When you think about it, putting "definition" and "philosophy" in the same sentence sounds almost too perfect—like it’s some kind of ultimate truth... ah, maybe not quite, but it works for me >>36

CHEERS

To achieve a (truly good) definition, you really need three distinct elements:
1. A clear insight into the concept itself
2. Subtlety—that delicate ability to separate the essential from the trivial
3. Durability—the capacity to withstand the relentless passage of time

In my experience, most definitions fail to hit the mark—sounding more like a sour note in a symphony than a perfect chord—because they miss one of these three requirements. Most often, it’s the third one that trips them up... which suggests we should probably treat every definition merely as an approximation rather than an absolute truth.

I have another way of visualizing this—think of sand slipping through a clenched fist—a definition is much like wet sand held in your palm. The hand represents your grasp (the scope) of the concept, the subtlety is the ability to keep the essential grains from leaking out, and if you actually manage to hold that mixture together, then you've achieved durability.

bubba_ho_thep said:For real though, maybe it’s time to actually hit the books? Your test scores are basically screaming that you don't have a clue about her.

Could you maybe be a little more constructive here? Like, what exactly did I get wrong, where's the mistake, and how should I've phrased it instead? You know, help me out a bit... 😉

Jonathan Brooks8 said:2. subtlety (the precision of separating what matters from what doesn't)

...subtlety is keeping the essence held right in your hand...

Just doing a little semantic nitpicking here—hope the topic allows it! So, looking at your second point, I’d actually swap out "essential" for "relevant." See, when we use the word "essence," we usually mean something fixed, like the unchangeable essentiu of a thing. But if I'm catching your drift, your whole idea about "subtlety in separating the important from the unimportant" is really about having a feel for the context you're in. Like, sure, Water is the "essence" of water, but knowing it's H2O isn't actually relevant in a ton of everyday situations where we're just talking about Water.
Also, regarding that map vs. territory metaphor: just because a map isn't the actual ground doesn't mean every map is equally wrong (you know, how those postmodernists—or sophists, as they used to be called—try to convince us). Not at all. Some maps are garbage, sure, but others are incredibly good and useful. And look, someone who knows the terrain inside and out doesn't even need a map—but maps aren't exactly made for them anyway.
But honestly? Trying to build one single map that works perfectly for every possible situation—like some absolute, context-free definition, or a version of Google Earth that stays valid regardless of what you're measuring—is basically doomed from the start.
It feels like we're always stuck trying to find that perfect balance between the Scylla of total relativism and the Haribda of absolute definitions.

Smith&Jones Co. said:...on one hand, there's those family resemblances of Mr. Wittgenstein...

I actually dig that—pointing out the similarities, finding the pattern before you even start drawing hard lines... those smooth transitions instead of just some binary "it fits or it doesn't" logic. It’s more about showing rather than proving.

mistyfox812 said:Allow me to indulge in a bit of semantic hair-splitting—hopefully, the subject matter justifies such pedantry. Regarding your description under point two, I would actually suggest using "relevant" rather than "essential." My reasoning is that when we use "essential," we are usually implying a fixed, unchangeable essence of a thing. However, if I am following your logic correctly, your way of discussing the "nuance of separating what matters from what doesn't" seems to rely heavily on the specific context of the conversation. For instance, while Water might be the very essence of water itself, stating that water is Water isn't necessarily relevant in countless everyday scenarios where we discuss it...

I agree—I was using "essential" more colloquially as a synonym for "important," but perhaps the entire description shouldn't be taken as a literal hypothesis. Rather, it should be viewed associatively, which is arguably much more 😁 vital
.

First off, you picked a totally useless example! You can't even define what good actually means! I mean, seriously, just because something works for you doesn't mean it works for me or anyone else out there!
For me? Good is being able to sleep in until noon without some jerk waking me up, but that's not everyone! My sister loves watching HGTV, but personally, I’d rather just jump out of a plane at 50,000 feet without a parachute!
Like I said in my first reply: sure, you can try to define it, but honestly? You're probably gonna fail!

life sucks!