The Coherence of a definition: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » The Coherence of a definition » The Coherence of a definition

The Coherence of a definition

Page: 1 2 3

The Coherence of a definition

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 07/15/09 - 11:49 AM: Subject: The Coherence of a definition	#1
What makes a coherent definition? If one is presented with a definition of an object (X) that is not coherent, what consequence's does this have? This topic was brought up in a few threads by Crackers. In many places he makes the argument that a coherent definition must contain positive attributed: My cat is small, soft and fury. He argues that secondary attributes would not accomplish the task of providing a coherent definition: My cat is fast and has claws. I understand him to be limiting the extent to which a definition can be used. An "incoherent definition" is incoherent because it is necessarily vague, and does not act to actually define a thing at all. We may speak about the definition in question easily, but it must be admitted that we do not ultimately know what we are talking about. Is this a sensible notion? Is there an argument against this position? Edited by Makarismos on 07/15/09 - 12:25 PM

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/15/09 - 12:08 PM:	#2
A coherent definition must contain a positive statement and must contain at least one property of the object being defined from which secondary, relational attributes arise. "An apple is red": this is a secondary attribute of an apple and is not enough to define what an apple is. "An apple is not a car": this is a negative statement and negative statements alone cannot define what an apple is. "An apple is made of physical, organic matter." This is an example of a positive statement (it says what an apple is rather than what it is not) and is also a property of an apple from which secondary attributes arise (organic matter which is green, for example.) However, "an apple is made of physical, organic matter" is not enough to define what an apple is. We must then go on to define the secondary attributes which arise from this particular organic matter which distinguishes it from other organic matter. "An apple is a fruit" is an example of such a positive and primary property. We can then go on to define the secondary attributes of this particular fruit which separates it from other fruits as suggested above. Any definition without at least one positive statement and one primary property of the object being defined is not a coherent definition. This is what needs to be challenged. Can we define something by negative statements alone or by secondary attributes alone or both negative statements and secondary attributes and the definition still be coherent? I think to define something one must define it's primary substance, it's primary essence, it's body of being. "Sound is vibrations travelling through a medium" tells me what sound is. "Sound is something that diminishes silence" is not a coherent definition on it's own. Edited by Crackers on 07/15/09 - 12:14 PM

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 843

Posted 07/15/09 - 12:55 PM:	#3
C, Would you please make clear what you mean by each of your terms? Positive statement - is this a statement that does not include a negated verb? "It is made of" vs. "It is not made of" "It lacks" vs. "It does not lack"? Primary - First you refer to "organic matter" as being a primary property and then you say "a fruit". Both of these things identify class memberships, but do not seem to refer to a specific essence qua apple. What is the apple's "body of being"? Substance - Terribly confused. You define "sound" as your example, but sound is a phenomenon (a relation of particles over time)but does not have substance (a physical particle that makes it up) please explain. The question of the OP and your opening both seem to agree that an "object" is being defined, so I am not sure why sound is being invoked as an example.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 07/15/09 - 01:29 PM:	#4
A further request, if you please, in addition to xzJoel's terms could you define coherent? Is it free from contradictions? Also, how does the reliance on properties differ from or relate to necessary and sufficient conditions? I suspect that a sufficient condition for a species may in fact be a secondary property.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/15/09 - 01:56 PM:	#5
xzJoel wrote: Positive statement A positive assertion; tell us what something is, not what it is not. E.g. Positive: Fred is kind. Negative: Fred is not an elephant. Primary The foremost property from which secondary attributes arise. Primary: Fred is made of physical matter. (If I say "Fred is an elephant" then it implies physical matter, a primary property.) Secondary: Fred is kind. What is the apple's "body of being"? All things which make the apple the apple. All properties and attributes. Substance - Terribly confused. You define "sound" as your example, Sound wasn't intended as an example for "substance." However, substance: –noun 1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance. 2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: a chalky substance. 3. controlled substance. 4. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc. 5. [the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. 6. substantial or solid character or quality: claims lacking in substance. 7. consistency; body: soup without much substance. 8. the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9. something that has separate or independent existence. 10. Philosophy. a. something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b. the essential part of a thing; essence. c. a thing considered as a continuing whole. 11. possessions, means, or wealth: to squander one's substance. 12. Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form ). 13. a standard of weights for paper. The bold most accurately defines what I mean when I say "substance." Gadfly II wrote: A further request, if you please, in addition to xzJoel's terms could you define coherent? Logically consistent. Also, how does the reliance on properties differ from or relate to necessary and sufficient conditions? If 'X' has properties 'Y' then any being 'Z' requires all properties 'Y' in order to be sufficient so as to be called 'X'. The difference between what I call a "primary property" versus a "secondary property" is really just a "non-relational property" versus a "relational property." That is, properties that are related to the object but not defining of the essence of the object itself are relational (secondary). Properties that are defining of the essence of the object itself are non-relational (primary). S is cognitively meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition. The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable. Similarly, Y is what it is does not express a meaningful proposition. In this sense to claim to believe in X or Y is a meaningless assertion in the same way as I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatically correct but without meaning. Edited by Crackers on 07/15/09 - 02:22 PM

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 07/15/09 - 02:25 PM:	#6
Makarismos wrote: We may speak about the definition in question easily, but it must be admitted that we do not ultimately know what we are talking about. Yes, this criterion is inapplicable to any epistemological / cognitive practice. In fact, like the claim by global skeptics that "certain knowledge is impossible therefore we cannot know anything", inapplicable criteria like these are self-retuting. But maybe your characterization (and mine) do not do justice to Crackers' position. Let's consider what he actually claims: Crackers wrote: A coherent definition must contain a positive statement and must contain at least one property of the object being defined from which secondary, relational attributes arise. This is too vague and therefore incoherent by your standards. Here's why: "An apple is a fruit." What is "fruit"? physical, organic matter What is "physical"? What is "organic"? What is "matter"? "An apple is a fruit" is an example of such a positive and primary property. Says who? What makes "fruit" "a primary property"? Is this a metaphysical essence? or telos? There is no logical terminus to terminological digressions like these. Even metaphysical simples as positied by logical atomism lack any "secondary, relational attributes" which you require. Only discursive context seems to intelligibly stabilize the ostensibility of terms and concepts. To say "She's the apple of my eye" is no less coherent than saying "Apples grow on trees". Vagueness of terms, what you are calling "not coherently defined", is a result of lack of contextual-specificity and not lack of positivistic verifiability (or essence-clarity). Perhaps you haven't heard but verificationism -- which your definition of "coherent definition" is a species of, or what A.J. Ayer critically referred to as "strong verification" -- is not verifiable. Lastly, why do you assume that objects are other than ensembles of predicates (e.g. conditions, relations, patterns, dimensions/vectors, etc) consisting in "primary & secondary attributes"? or that their conceptions are not context-dependent, or theory-laden? Edited by 180 Proof on 07/15/09 - 02:33 PM. Reason: Shall we?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 07/15/09 - 06:21 PM:	#7
Crackers wrote: A coherent definition must contain a positive statement and must contain at least one property of the object being defined from which secondary, relational attributes arise. This seems rather arbitrary. In particular . . . Crackers wrote: Gadfly II wrote: A further request, if you please, in addition to xzJoel's terms could you define coherent? Logically consistent. I do not quite understand how logical consistency requires that a definition contain a positive statement and at least one property of the object being defined. Please elaborate.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

play
Tat Tvam Asi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 112

Posted 07/15/09 - 09:08 PM:	#8
If you go to define a word, using words, with what words will you define those words? Complete coherency may be unattainable. So as long as we have the intuitions we do, we can approach a high degree of mutual understanding. So let's not make that more complicated than it has to be.
There once was a man who said so, "It seems that I know that I know. But what I would like to see Is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know."

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/16/09 - 02:28 AM:	#9
180 Proof wrote: What is "fruit"? "Fruit" is a defined word which infers primary properties like "physical organic matter." What is "physical"? What is "organic"? What is "matter"? Physical: Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. Organic: Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter. Matter: Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole. These words are each coherently defined as the propositions they express can be entertained in thought and these definitions can be used to verify whether an object is "physical", "organic" and/or "matter" (this is what I mean by "verification".) What makes each of these a primary property of fruit is that they define the fruits essence, what the fruit essentially is. Which answers this question: Says who? What makes "fruit" "a primary property"? Is this a metaphysical essence? or telos? Even metaphysical simples as positied by logical atomism lack any "secondary, relational attributes" which you require. Perhaps this is because they are simple and so do not need secondary, realational attributes to define what makes them unique; the essence suffices as a definition. To say "She's the apple of my eye" is no less coherent than saying "Apples grow on trees". Well no, of course not, because "apple" is defined in each case (though one is metaphor.) Lastly, why do you assume that objects are other than ensembles of predicates (e.g. conditions, relations, patterns, dimensions/vectors, etc) consisting in "primary & secondary attributes"? I do not assume that objects are other than "ensembles of predicates." I propose that to coherently define an object the primary predicate must be inferred. or that their conceptions are not context-dependent, or theory-laden? I do not. aletheist wrote: This seems rather arbitrary. In particular . . .Logically consistent. I do not quite understand how logical consistency requires that a definition contain a positive statement and at least one property of the object being defined. Please elaborate. I will give you an example which should serve as further elaboration. 'X' creates art is a secondary, relational attributes arising from the essence, the being, the structure, the nature, the form, of 'X'. 'X' is not a window is a negative statement. For a coherent definition that which is being defined must be entertainable in thought (so that it can serve as something understandable and useful in linguistics.) With the above definitions of 'X' it is impossible to imagine the object of 'X' without asserting the essence of 'X'. You must imagine a being that makes the art in order to create a logical picture of 'X'. Now, let's say you imagine a person; this is fine however with the current definition of 'X' one cannot verify whether or not 'X' is actually a person. Therefore, the essence of 'X' is yet to be posited. The most one can imagine is a cloud of essence without form from which this relational attribute to create art arises. To create a logical picture, a coherent thought, of 'X' which is verifiably 'X' one must infer the essence, the form, the nature, of 'X'. Thus, if I now state that: " 'X' is Leonardo Da Vinci " I infer all the positive essence, form and nature of what we understand to be Leonardo Da Vinci. We can now entertain a coherent thought of 'X' which is verifiable. We have coherently defined 'X' (assuming that Leonardo Da Vinci is already coherently defined, of course.) Relational attributes and negative propositions are not sufficient in creating an entertainable thought which we can understand to be something and something which is verifiably that something. Thus, I propose the following challenge: Think of any object. Call it 'X'. Now, define what 'X' is with only relational attributes and negative statements and we shall see if that definition suffices as something coherent, something which we can understand to be something so that we can have meaningful discussion about it. play wrote: Complete coherency may be unattainable. So as long as we have the intuitions we do, we can approach a high degree of mutual understanding. So let's not make that more complicated than it has to be. This is what I ask for, nothing more. Edited by Crackers on 07/16/09 - 02:58 AM

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 07/16/09 - 06:37 AM:	#10
Crackers wrote: Thus, I propose the following challenge: Think of any object. Call it 'X'. Now, define what 'X' is with only relational attributes and negative statements and we shall see if that definition suffices as something coherent, something which we can understand to be something so that we can have meaningful discussion about it. Good game! X posts on philosophyforums. X is not enlightened.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.