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.