"How do you define...?"...Definition

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:52 am
Definitions are something to do with some project directed at ‘efficiency’. If not we would be here - SOME level efficiency is essential. Proof is my response to the OP here :D

Next question!
And what makes efficiency what it is?

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:52 am
Definitions are something to do with some project directed at ‘efficiency’. If not we would be here - SOME level efficiency is essential. Proof is my response to the OP here :D

Next question!
And what makes efficiency what it is?
Go and measure a ruler?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:40 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:52 am
Definitions are something to do with some project directed at ‘efficiency’. If not we would be here - SOME level efficiency is essential. Proof is my response to the OP here :D

Next question!
And what makes efficiency what it is?
Go and measure a ruler?
So a ruler determines efficiency?

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:46 am

It was an analogy of your empty line of questioning. Go stare in the mirror or read a dictionary defining each word after the other in endless act of anus chasing ... or not?

If you have qualm with epistemic pursuits cut to it or be met with silence.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:01 am

What is critical is the truth of reality.
The truth of reality is always conditioned within a framework created by humans.
E.g. The Scientific Framework to establish scientific truths, there are other framework for legal truths, mathematical truths, etc.
There are no absolute definitions that are independent of the human conditions and consensus.

To establish and communicate those specific truth there is a need for concepts.
To facilitate the above there is a need for definitions of the concepts based on consensus within the respective frameworks.
For example the definition for concepts within the scientific framework are established by the respective scientist concerned and agreed in consensus. Those outside the scientific framework do not have the authority to define the concepts. It is the same for all other frameworks.

Therefore definitions-in-consensus are relative to the respective frameworks by various groups.

The group need not be within a framework, e.g. Scientific, etc. Definitions can be established by two individuals in a contract where the term used must be defined and agreed by both parties. These definitions can be created by themselves and accepted by both parties. If not the definitions can be borrowed from elsewhere and agreed by both parties.

Similar in a forum discussions, whether the definitions are created or borrowed they must be accepted by both parties. In any party were to reject any definition by the other, it would useless to proceed with the discussion.

Definitions do not represent or justify the truth of reality.
The truths of reality are justified by evidence and arguments within the specific framework.

Thus definitions are in a way tools to facilitate discussions or argument in arriving at the truth of reality.
Where is an establish framework, e.g. scientific framework, the definitions are pre-defined an agreed by peers in consensus.
Where is no established definition, both parties will have to trash out whatever definition is agreeable by both parties before both can proceed to an argument.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Skepdick » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:28 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am
Jung has a solid point of exploring and mastering the internal nature and not just the exterior elements.
It's the exact same point Aristotle had also. Know thyself.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:55 am

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am
Jung has a solid point of exploring and mastering the internal nature and not just the exterior elements.
It's the exact same point Aristotle had also. Know thyself.
Not just Aristotle or Jung...Abrahamic Religions, Taoism, Hinduism, sects of paganism...

User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Tesla » Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:22 am

your skirting the edge of sophistry here.

Words represent an idea. Some are simple ideas. the color red. it could be defined with the grunt "urg" and still represent what our eyes see when they recognize the color.

The need for definitions DURING discussion becomes important when one word has multiple meanings. One individual says "I'd like it to be cool" The other individual interprets the word to mean less heat, the speaker was referring to the 'mood'.

Some words are very poorly defined, because the education of one speaker has a different vision in their mind for an oft used word 'existence' for example, and uses it primarily when discussing existentialism. Another person using it doesn't know what existentialism is and would be frustrated at the confusion of why what they are saying when they use the word makes no sense to the listener. In the case of those words, your argument has some validity. That is why supplying a definition of how a person is using a word in a discussion should be encouraged. Not all ideas yet have words.

So how do you define...? ..just do the best you can.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:37 am

Tesla wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:22 am
your skirting the edge of sophistry here.

Give me the definition of dialectic without skirting on the edge of sophistry or a slippery slope fallacy...it can't be done. Truth is just assumed, and is a made up word hidden within rings of definitions.

"Dialect", based upon a quick Google search, is "a particular form of language which is peculiar to a specific region or social group."

In simpler terms, dialect is just "form" and as form it is contextual. Truth is form, truth is context, this is absolute.


Words represent an idea. Some are simple ideas. the color red. it could be defined with the grunt "urg" and still represent what our eyes see when they recognize the color.

The need for definitions DURING discussion becomes important when one word has multiple meanings. One individual says "I'd like it to be cool" The other individual interprets the word to mean less heat, the speaker was referring to the 'mood'.

Definitions are connected contexts which are assumed. To define definition, which is necessary considering definition cannot be assumed without negating itself, results in a tautology.

Some words are very poorly defined, because the education of one speaker has a different vision in their mind for an oft used word 'existence' for example, and uses it primarily when discussing existentialism. Another person using it doesn't know what existentialism is and would be frustrated at the confusion of why what they are saying when they use the word makes no sense to the listener. In the case of those words, your argument has some validity. That is why supplying a definition of how a person is using a word in a discussion should be encouraged. Not all ideas yet have words.

So how do you define...? ..just do the best you can.

Best is highly relative.

duszek
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by duszek » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:24 pm

Fine in Latin means border or limit.

When we define a word we explore its limits and borders in relations to other words (or terms).

The limits of the word "animal" stretch and include human beings but not living objects that do not move, like trees.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:34 pm

duszek wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:24 pm
Fine in Latin means border or limit.

When we define a word we explore its limits and borders in relations to other words (or terms).

The limits of the word "animal" stretch and include human beings but not living objects that do not move, like trees.
Yes, thus each definition as the projection of one assumption to another is grounded in an inherent linear form. This linear form, as definition, is "limit".

The nature of definition is grounded in limits, which is rooted in form, with this form manifested through progressive assumptions.

Each assumption as intrinsically empty, with this emptiness projected to further emptiness under the limit of linear reasoning.

Geometry and language definition are variations of eachother.

So any definition of definition is a tautology of symbols that superposition.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Skepdick » Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:34 am

You don't define definition. You understand definition.

The formalised notion of desriptive complexity helps one develop their intuition about what definition is.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:24 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:34 am
You don't define definition. You understand definition.

The formalised notion of desriptive complexity helps one develop their intuition about what definition is.
Defining definition results in a tautology of the context "definition", hence unnecessary language games...yet this is inevitable as definition is a hinge term empty of meaning unless one assumes assuming it.

Definition is assuming assumption, and as such necessitates an intuitive element like you say.

A rational one in the respect it requires the relation of symbols through the formation of symbols (ie if I define definition I have to create new words and relations of words to define it.)

I am not really against what the link infers, but by the diagram as a symbolic image alone, it necessitates a spiral effect we see in a basic dictionary. Intuition, in dealing with events that exist through time, is spatial awareness from this angle.

nothing
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:16 pm

Defining definition results in a tautology of the context "definition", hence unnecessary language games...yet this is inevitable as definition is a hinge term empty of meaning unless one assumes assuming it.
Do not define definition: allow any-all-a-thing to define itself viz.
You don't define definition. You understand definition.
is therefor valid if definition is left undefined according to the thing (being allowed to) define itself. Therefor, definition is empty of meaning, but its the same intrinsic emptiness of meaning which allows any/all contextual definition(s) in the first place. It is like the eye being void of color, thus able to see it.

For example, applied to any potential conflict:
I do not define you, and
you do not define me.
(I define me, and
you define you.)
leaves 'definition' as a local variable, and is variably less conflict. Try now the inverse:
I do define you, and
you do define me.
(I define me not, and
you define you not.)
and note attempts to define others collapses 'definition' according to the local being (of the other, and vice versa), and conflict ensues.
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
If one believes another evil, they imply their own relative goodness.
If one believes themselves good, they imply others' relative evilness.
These are the same as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: either way, conflict ensues.

The alternative that avoids this entire conundrum is to not attempt to define anything:
i. that is not ones own self, and
ii. as objectively good or evil (ie. to believe to know either in their entirety to a certainty)

which both preserves a shared responsibility of/by each (to not define each the other) and allows for belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death according to the same degree(s) to which a being believes themselves such a right to define others (!). Why would any all-knowing god create a universe requiring constant intervention viz. revelations, books, idols etc. if it could just "program" creation to punish people for their own ignorance(s) in believing in such things from the onset? Thus ignorance is invited and suffered by the individual, rather than any god.

There are belief-based ideologies trying to define people on the basis of their "unbelief". This is a certain genesis-seed of fascism: "other" on the basis of (un)belief. This is a "definition" responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions: they are "unbelievers" therefor we are at war with them.

Never-mind it takes a believer to believe evil is good. It is so striking to me this has yet not occurred and/or occupied the concern of any/all belief-based theology: if satan requires belief, and god is antithetical, how can god also require belief? This is absurd: god must be the negation of the requirement of belief, which follows naturally as knowledge of any/all not to believe being a potent property of any all-knowing anything, including god.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:03 am

nothing wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:16 pm
Defining definition results in a tautology of the context "definition", hence unnecessary language games...yet this is inevitable as definition is a hinge term empty of meaning unless one assumes assuming it.
Do not define definition: allow any-all-a-thing to define itself viz.
You don't define definition. You understand definition.
is therefor valid if definition is left undefined according to the thing (being allowed to) define itself. Therefor, definition is empty of meaning, but its the same intrinsic emptiness of meaning which allows any/all contextual definition(s) in the first place. It is like the eye being void of color, thus able to see it.

For example, applied to any potential conflict:
I do not define you, and
you do not define me.
(I define me, and
you define you.)
leaves 'definition' as a local variable, and is variably less conflict. Try now the inverse:
I do define you, and
you do define me.
(I define me not, and
you define you not.)
and note attempts to define others collapses 'definition' according to the local being (of the other, and vice versa), and conflict ensues.
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
If one believes another evil, they imply their own relative goodness.
If one believes themselves good, they imply others' relative evilness.
These are the same as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: either way, conflict ensues.

The alternative that avoids this entire conundrum is to not attempt to define anything:
i. that is not ones own self, and
ii. as objectively good or evil (ie. to believe to know either in their entirety to a certainty)

which both preserves a shared responsibility of/by each (to not define each the other) and allows for belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death according to the same degree(s) to which a being believes themselves such a right to define others (!). Why would any all-knowing god create a universe requiring constant intervention viz. revelations, books, idols etc. if it could just "program" creation to punish people for their own ignorance(s) in believing in such things from the onset? Thus ignorance is invited and suffered by the individual, rather than any god.

There are belief-based ideologies trying to define people on the basis of their "unbelief". This is a certain genesis-seed of fascism: "other" on the basis of (un)belief. This is a "definition" responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions: they are "unbelievers" therefor we are at war with them.

Never-mind it takes a believer to believe evil is good. It is so striking to me this has yet not occurred and/or occupied the concern of any/all belief-based theology: if satan requires belief, and god is antithetical, how can god also require belief? This is absurd: god must be the negation of the requirement of belief, which follows naturally as knowledge of any/all not to believe being a potent property of any all-knowing anything, including god.
As undefined it acts as a pivotal term subject to the observer's specific meaning. As such definition, as a process of seperation, fundamentally breaks down to an art form as an expression of the individual. As an art, it has no real methodology behind it an acts as a mean of assuming reality.

Considering definition cannot be broken down to a specific methodology you can have "A" defined as:

A
(A)
A-->B
A-->A1
A-->X
((A)B)
((A)A1)
((A)X)
...... and an infinite number of further definitions.

It is the nature of definition, as having a subjective nature, that definition takes on an element of randomness where "truths" or "proofs", as subject to definition, spontaneously appear in time.

It is the random nature, fundamentally grounded in an inescapable subjectivity, that necessitates "fact" and "proof" can be said to "come out of thin air".

This nature of spontaneousness, correlates dually with an antithetical definition following the same nature of spontaneity. In these respects "facts/proofs" as subject to validity if and only if they continue in time require an element of belief.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests