On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
maybe we ignorami who are less familiar (or unfamiliar) with Frege,
Quine, or Churchland could benefit.
I was hoping against hope that the fraternal verbal duelists, our own
Euthydemos and Dionysodoros, might venture to define the word they
were sparring over--"definition." No such luck. Playing with undefined
terms is such fun! (a "definition" of a simple term is a composite
term that may be substituted for that term in all its uses within the
given context: if X is defined as (f)Y, then (f)Y can replace X
throughout with no loss of meaning).
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]>
wrote:
If I say e.g.
“A wheel is round”, or, 4=2+2
Then that is a correct definition (although it may not be a complete
definition, adequate to distinguish the object from all related
objects, or all other objects as such).
If I say e.g.
“A wheel is a square object”, or, 5=2+2
Then that is an incorrect definition.
So there are correct and incorrect (false) definitions, even although
they might not be complete, and even although they might be more or
less useful for the given purpose. We can often give various proofs
for definitions, and so on.
====================
I'm all too familiar with the problems of the analytic/synthetic
distinction post Frege, Quine and Churchland, thanks.
E.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
