COLLEGE OF

SOUTHEASTERN

EUROPE

PHI 3120

"Introduction to Logic"

Instructor: Dr. Pontikos

Essay 2

"The Nature of definition"

Fotios Bassayiannis

Student #: 88395

Let me begin my essay by stating some basic yet very important questions; Where does the need for a definition arise from? To construct a definition, does one need to have a linguistic or any kind of symbolic system first and if yes how does that account for the nature of definition? When is a term well defined? Does a good definition add to the reality of the existence of the definiendum? Why do we need definitions? How can a definition ever be non-conventional? Finally, are definitions just words about words? If so, then a definition does not amount for much and all truth or knowledge is to be sought after words referring to concrete objects. Can that be?

This paper will try to at least superficially address these questions. I say "superficially,"  because if I could successfully address them in depth then I would be a prime candidate for the next Nobel prize.

One has to acknowledge here that the main motive for defining things is the need for communication. Often your audience might not understand completely a term that you find necessary to use and then you would have to define that term. That might prove to be kind of hard though. Even for an audience of professional peers, exact definitions can be hard to write. According to a former professor of Philosophy and a good friend of mine (and don’t ask me for bibliography or anything. He wishes to remain anonymous):

"When I go to Philosophical meetings, I don't find it worth my time to listen to half the papers that my colleagues read because I do not, frankly, know what the guys are talking about, and being human, I half suspect that they don't either...Without meaning to do so, the world of science, of the professors, glories in the invention of technical languages that connote the cutting up of the solidarity of mankind until it gets very, very difficult to follow the general argument of science itself."

So, how does one go about defining things? Let's look at the kinds of definitions - or should I say versions, types or  use some other word; and in using these words how do I ensure that you get the proper meaning or the meaning that these words have for me. Furthermore how do these words differ between them? How do I pick between them? These questions lead to at least one clear inference. WE NEED CLEAR AND UNIVERSAL DEFINITIONS FOR EVERY SINGLE WORD WE USE. If this prime directive is not met then we are doomed to a tragically futile exchange of spoken or written symbols, since communication fails. This is the main reason for the existence of dictionaries. Of course a "dictionary-like" definition is not the only kind of definition. What are the others? Well here is a short but rather informative list or queue or catalogue or record or directory or…oh well! I guess you get my meaning.

DENOTATION is the dictionary definition of a word. It is very short - and usually is not very helpful to an audience not already familiar with the word. A Formal or Sentence Definition is usually predominantly denotative.

CONNOTATION is the definition of a word or term which presents all of the "emotional baggage" that comes along with that term. Since I am going to hand in this paper late, which one of the following excuses should I use in order to explain what prevented me from bringing it on time?

· I was sick.

· I was ill.

· I was diseased.

                 All of these words have very similar denotations - but very different connotations!

Extended definitions are longer definitions that thoroughly explore connotations beyond what is possible with a simple, short, formal definition with its usual denotative focus. Different methods for writing an extended definition include:

    1. Explication--explain the meaning of key words in an opening sentence definition.

    2. Analysis--separate the whole term into component parts.

    3. Description--give details.

    4. Illustration--give examples, either verbally or with pictures.

    5. Analogy--make a comparison where two things are more alike than not alike.

    6. Elimination--tell what the term is not.

    7. Depict the origin, causes, and effects of the term.

    8. Relate the history of the word and/or word parts.

There are two main approaches for writing an extended definition, and they follow what any good engineer has learned about experimentation in the lab:

    Deductive--start with a logical definition (usually a sentence definition; but it can be expanded through the use of the methods stated above).

    Inductive--start with an illustration, comparison, analogy, and end with a logical (sentence) definition at the very end.

Our text-book and any text-book on Logic states the three basic rules that a definition must conform with in order to be successful. Expanding on them, a little bit, one could say that the following should be done if a definition is to really define something.

The term to be defined should not be repeated in the class or group. To say that tyranny is rule by a tyrant, or that chess is a game played on a chessboard, or that Puritanism was the religion of the Puritans, is not to define. This actually constitutes what we call a circular definition, and it gets you nowhere.

Definitions should be stated in simpler or more familiar language than the term being defined, or the purpose of definition is defeated. A classic example of this fault is Samuel Johnson's (a guy who is really famous for his singular ability to create singularly non-enlightening definitions) definition of a "cough" as "a convulsion of the lungs, vellicated by some sharp seroisity." Now how can anybody not know what a cough is and on the other hand know what "vellication" or "seroisity is? Probably, Mr. Jonhnson was defining terms to himself which is of course even more ludicrous.

A definition must not merely make a statement about the term. "Love is what makes the world go round," and "happiness is a warm puppy" - two statements so very much loved in the US that I would not dare submit this paper there - are touching sentiments (now here is a challenge; how can one define a sentiment?) but not definitions since they lack the essential characteristics of a definition: inclusion and exclusion. The notions of "inclusion" and "exclusion" will be further explained in my discussion of a formal definition.

Definitions should be stated in positive terms whenever possible. Definitions that fail to do so are often insufficient. A nice example of that is  "A shotgun is not a rifle."

The "is when" and "is where" constructions are to be avoided in a definition that aspires to be exact. A "thing" is a "noun" not a time or place. Thus definitions like "Arson is when a house is burned down" or "Despair is when you think your life is useless" are just not really definitions at all.

Let's now take a look at what a formal definition is. Usually to define a term, you first name it, then place it in a larger grouping of similar words (a process known as classification), and then show how it differs from others in the same group. There are usually three parts to any formal definition:

· the word itself,

· its class (what is included in that definition class),

· and the characteristics (more detailed inclusion - and by implication, what is NOT included in that class or set of characteristics - what we call exclusion.)

Here are two examples of formal definitions divided into their constituent parts. In order to make my point better I have chosen two terms that belong in the same class.

WORD                     CLASS               CHARACTERISTICS

 a canoe                    is a small boat     that has curved sides and pointed ends and is            

                                                             narrow, made of light-weight

                                                             materials, and propelled by paddles.

 a rowboat                is a small boat     that has a shallow draft and usually a flat or      

                                                             rounded bottom, a squared-off or

                                                             v-shaped stern, and oarlocks, and is propelled         

                                                             by oars.

When one questions the quality of a proposed definition, some questions that he ought to ask himself are: Is it an adequate formal definition? Is the class  that the definition mentions too narrow or too broad? Do the distinguishing characteristics miss the essence of the term? Does the definition include or exclude too much? It is important to note here that a good definition is always concerned with "capturing" the essence of the definiendum. That is, the definition should include the essential properties of the term that is being defined, properties without which the term would cease being what it is.

On the other hand we also have informal definitions. Informal definitions give a quick clue to the meaning of the word. They can be a one-word synonym or short phrase. When one wants to quickly clarify a term without interrupting the flow of his writing, they can be very useful. This can be considered a type of paraphrase. That is as a concept that is familiar to the reader only if restated in more recognisable terms. For example: "binary numbers are usually entered in their hexadecimal (base-16 number) form."

Expanded (or extended) definitions usually begin with a formal definition and then go on by exemplification, comparison, classification, analogy, description, or illustration. The extended definition provides additional information about the term.

            Let me close this essay by offering some questions that may lead to further insight on the subject. Is asking the defining mechanism to define itself the same as asking a dog to chase its tail? If a word is defined by other words and these words by others and so on, and given the fact that the number of existing words is finite isn't this whole system a circular definition?