[lit-ideas] Re: Is defining wronged by torture?
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:53:16 -0700
Eric wrote:
Hume noted that defining terms in terms of other terms merely
substitutes synonyms for the term being defined. This is the
"definitional circle" that leads to infinite regress. It is a well-known
juncture in British empiricism.
Hume objects to definitions which have no stopping place, as in
traditional metaphysics. Hume was in that sense an early
verificationist: 'So, whenever we are suspicious that a "philosophical
term is employed without any meaning or idea (as is too frequent), we
need but enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived?
And if it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our
suspicion. By bringing ideas into so clear a light we may reasonably
hope to remove all dispute, which may arise, concerning their nature and
reality.' [Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 22]. The impressions
he mentions here are 'impressions of sensations,' ultimately, perhaps
the kinds of things that Russell characterized as sense-data.
'These impressions are all strong and sensible. They admit not of
ambiguity. They are not only placed in a full light themselves, but may
throw light on their correspondent ideas, which lie in obscurity" [EHU, 62].
How words get into a language—top down or bottom up—isn't really taken
up by Hume. I have a term, 'catfish,' which I want to resolve into its
antecedent simple impressions of sensation; but the word itself doesn't
reach back to scaly creatures with big teeth who live in swamps and
rivers. 'What's a catfish?' Judy asks. 'A kind of fish with scales, big
teeth, etc.,' I say. 'What are scales…?' Ultimately I point to a fish
scale on a live fish, a stuffed fish, a picture of a fish, and so on.
And the process stops apparently when I reach something 'simple' like a
color or a shape, which is a simple impression of sensation. But I might
as well have pointed to a catfish, said 'This,' and hoped for the best.
As Eric notes, Hume didn't think definitions were impossible. He thought
that 'just definitions' of terms were possible in the sense sketched
here. Yet at some point there is something brute which cannot be further
resolved into a simple part or element; and perhaps these simple
elements can only be pointed to, not 'defined.'
These are deep waters. Only Donal knows how deep.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
