|
Dialectical Definitions
Socrates continually demanded definitions: precise definitions built upon question and answer protocols that covered the subject universally. He believed that facts have no generic attributes and that if one knows something one can define it. For example, he claimed that anyone who has knowledge can define it. Subsequently, definitions became important to philosophical development because they led to the idea of a universal (a common quality contained in many individually existing things). [09]
The enigma of the universe manifests itself in definitional ambiguity. Clearly, the establishment of true meaning lies in coining terms that reveal the presence of ambiguity and an acceptance that they do not completely avoid it. [10]
Some terms have common meaning and, consequently, commonly agreed definitions while others bear various interpretations. For example, the terms “iron” and “silver” have universal meaning because they precisely define unique elements, unlike the terms “ethics” and “morals” that fluctuate. Therefore, making a systematic classification and division of words to differentiate between those terms that fluctuate in meaning and those that do not, seems prudent. [11]
An exercise in futility begins when one tries practically to define the term “definition” because to define a thing one locates it in terms of something else. The word definition (to define or determine a thing) itself implicitly marks boundaries. [12]
However, classification and division help show its complexity and provide an organizational structure within which to work. A definition expresses a finite idea as a word or term. A formal definition has two parts: definiens, the defining term, and, definiendum, the term defined. [13]
The defining principle requires both classification (genus) and division (species). This involves classification of the genus term with similar terms. Additionally, it involves division of its characteristics from other terms within the same classification to identify the species term. [14]
Classification and division bring order to diverse bodies of complex information. The protocol likens the abstraction ladder used by semanticists to move from the abstract to the concrete. With classification the process moves up the ladder to seek higher abstractions for separate items. With division it moves down the ladder to reduce the abstractions into the separate concrete elements contained within them. [15]
Confusion over two different kinds of definition, words and things, takes the need to consider the defining principle a stage further. Analysis of the source material for congruity (correspondence) helps to find the difference between words and things. Simply stated, synonyms compare words by using metaphor and named elements contrast things by using enumeration.
The enumeration of any given thing relates to its elements, both nouns and verbs. These elements remain inexplicable and unknowable because terms do not express them, they only name them. However, combined, element names provide explicable and knowable complex accounts (descriptions). Moreover, these accounts add overt verbal expression to some simple definitions.
The mind does not truly conceive an idea without an account of its constituent elements although at the time it does not know it. If one cannot give an account of something one truly believes then one cannot really know it. [16] Similarly, a definition of something without an account remains incomplete because when no account exists no real definition can pertain to it. However, an account added to true belief yields the requisite knowledge and provides adequate information to coin a precise definition. [17]
For example, a vehicle contains one hundred pieces of wood, too many to identify easily. A definition of the whole vehicle classifies it as a wagon and divides it into its principal parts: wheels, axle, body, rails, and yoke. This classification and division give a correct notion or a simple definition of the vehicle. A complete definition of the vehicle needs an additional statement that adds individual descriptions of the hundred pieces of wood to the simple definition. The definition now contains an account and technical knowledge of the wagon’s nature and contents: it now describes the whole vehicle. [18]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object definitions do not suffice unless they differ from those that apply to all other objects because terms applied to common objects embrace all similar objects. Consequently, uniqueness must become immediately apparent and results from the ability to distinguish any given object from all others. For example, an absolute definition results from naming something like the sun because the term distinguishes the object from everything else. Uniquely, a definition of the sun describes it as the brightest object in the sky and, therefore, contains absolute knowledge about the sun. [19]
The ultimate goal of knowledge remains to convey absolute meaning to a specific audience by using special purpose definitions that have contextual integrity. If all definitions essentially meet these criteria, then they will apply only to their special purposes because they become useless metaphors if taken out of context. Moreover, definitions become an imperative for communicating with nonspecialist audiences.
Definition has six common types: prescriptive authority, stipulative agreement, lexical description, negative explication, comparative analysis, also essential and descriptive classification. [20] The communication demands of the electronic era require new definitions that meet technological needs, hence, the addition of kinetographic definitions to this list of dialectic definition protocols.
|
