|
Negative Explication
In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates never defines the term knowledge. He defines knowledge by proving what terms do not apply to it. He propounds that terms represent neither sense perception nor true opinion, or true opinion with a rational explanation. He continually digresses and uses convoluted argument. For example, he maintains that things known can represent things generally known and perceived, things not generally known but perceived, or confusion of things generally known and perceived. [27]
|
|
Definition by Negative Explication
|
|
Knowledge
|
Things known can represent things generally known and perceived, things not generally known but perceived, or confusion of things generally known and perceived.
|
|
Paradox
|
The contextual definition for words uses negation because it defines what it is not. Since determined things remain positive, one might emphasize the paradox by translating it as every positive relates negatively.
|
|
Context
|
The term “substance” derives from a word that describes its context: it stresses location. Context exists outside or beyond the thing and, consequently, the word describes something that it is not.
|
|
|
Spinoza held that all definition uses “negation” because it defines a thing in its context or what it is not. He formulated the paradox of contextual definition for words by saying that all determination negates; omnis determinatio est negatio. Consequently, since determined things remain positive, one might emphasize the paradox by translating it as every positive negates. [28]
However, does this apply for all definition or just for negative explications? When theologies treat God both as man’s ultimate context and as man’s prescriptive authority the two become interwoven. Probably, contextual definition stresses location, whereas prescriptive authority stresses evolution. [29]
Another example shows that the word 'substance', used to describe a thing, derives etymologically from a word that describes its context. It supports or underlies the thing described rather than describing it. Context exists outside or beyond the thing and, consequently, the word describes something that it is not.
Although used to describe something intrinsic or inherent that relates to its essential nature, the word etymologically refers to something extrinsic or extraneous. [30] Although negative explication reaches no conclusion it serves well to teach dialoguers not to think that they know something when they know nothing. [31]
|
