There is a common misunderstanding about definitions, for descriptions
are sometimes included. A definition is properly an intensional metalevel
statement of the equivalence of a word and a phrase. The tradition going
back to Aristotle also requires that the definitional tree be in terms of
a property term and its negation. This requirement has to be relaxed
because there are relations as well as properties. Anyway, the
traditional definition (per genus proximum et species--if I recall the
phrase correctly) of "man" is "rational animal" or "rational mortal
animal." This latter, unfortunately, does not give a reasonable test of
an entity, for the only sure proof of mortality leads to the conclusion
that it was human. For a reasonable test we can go to the story that is
told of Plato, who described the class with "featherless biped." However,
Diogenes is supposed to have appeared the next day with a plucked chicken
and the message, "There, Plato, is your man." Whereupon Plato is supposed
to have revised the description by adding "with flat nails."
Unfortunately, as is generally the case, there are problems. For the
definition, is an anencephalic child born to a human pair human? For the
description, an amputee or a paraplegic?
In general, a definition must be true, reflecting usage in a language.
However, there may be a revision. For example, the come up with a term
for a new notion, the Greek philosophers took hyle, wood or lumber, and
used it to talk about matter. Sometimes words are invented, but more
often a new understanding is added, as, for example, in talking of
particles and waves in quantum physics, though pushing either metaphor
leads to problems, which "wavicle" does not remedy. There is the further
problem that the same noise or squiggle may require a context before its
meaning may be considered.
You will note that definition is normally ideal. Reality is messier.
Dave
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:24:46 -0500 "Darryl Maddox" <dpmaddox@arn.net>
writes:
Now that is a good definition. It may or may not be true but it is a
valid (in the sense of meeting the necessary conditions) definition. If
we assume (and I am willing to) most people can agree on the general
meaning of the words "living", "person"; and how to observationally or
instrumentally determine whether an object is or is not a body and is or
is not living AND what those words mean in combination, there is no
ambiguity. I see a potential problem with the "breath of life" phrase in
the latter parts of what you wrote because I can not figure out how an
atheistic doctor could determine either by observation or by
instrumentation whether or not a body (living or non-living) had it; that
is why I snipped everything but the first line.
Do you see the difference between what you wrote this time and what you
wrote the first time? What you wrote this time may be derivable from
what you wrote the first time, and the first may be true, but the first
was not a definition of "soul", whether that definition be true or not.
What you wrote this time is a definition though again, it may or may not
be true. I am not aware that being true is a necessary condition for a
definition. While I would never argue against the proposition that being
true makes one a better defintion, I don't know that they have to be true
to still be classified as definitions. It seems to me that if they had
to be true there could only be one definition of "sandstone", or
"granite" or "frog" and at least for the rocks I just mentioned, the
definition depends to some degree on on whose classification scheme you
use.
Any logicians in the group have any thoughts on that?
Darryl
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Roy
To: Darryl Maddox ; asanet
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: TE-man
Well let's see:
A soul = living person (by interpretation comparison between KJV and
NIV
That seems pretty exclusionary.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 14:41:19 EDT