[C] [Wittrs] Re: Essences versus Framework
- From: "J D" <ubersicht@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:14:09 -0000
SW,
> I don't like the use of the term "definition."
I've noticed. But be aware that "definition" is itself a word who various uses
are connected by family resemblance.
> If i say that the one thing that all the things we call "chairs" have in
> common is their utility for seating, it can't be a definition because other
> things having seating utility are not "chairs."
Well, I'd also point out that there are chairs that most certainly do not have
utility for seating, e.g. chairs that are created as objet d'art and could not
actually bear the weight of a person. Or chairs that are tiny precious metal
pendants. Or doll house chairs.
Then there is the usage of "chair" in place of "chairman".
Who says that a definition must preclude all such variants in order to be
useful?
> I agree that people can "define" in many ways -- negation, example, etc., --
> but don't we end up with a strange sense of the idea if we allow it in
> situations where it does not to confer or grant admission? Not to cut a
> boundary, so to speak?
But that is drawing a boundary. Which is fine, so long as one is clear about
the purpose for which such a boundary is to be drawn and so long as one
recognizes the extent to which such a boundary differs from other, established
usages.
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
