4.1 The Art of Definition Definition and its Depth Tasks of Definition

Definition and its depth

One of the most reliable ways to protect against misunderstandings in communication, research, debate, is the definition, or definition. The purpose of the definition is to clarify the content of the concepts used.

The importance of definitions was stressed by Socrates, who said that he continues the work of his mother, a midwife, and helps to be born of the truth in an argument. Analyzing, together with his opponents, the various cases of the use of a particular concept, he sought, in the end, to clarify and define it.

Although the role of definitions in clarifying and refining our thinking is not unimportant, they are not so often found in reasonings as we would like and as the interests of clarity in the reasoning require.

Definition tasks

In the most general sense, a definition is a logical operation that reveals the content of a concept. To define a concept is to indicate what it means, to reveal the signs included in its content.

Defining, for example, a thermometer, we indicate that this is, firstly, a device and, secondly, it is the one with which the temperature is measured. Giving a definition of the term "term", we say that this word or combination of words that has an exact meaning and is used in science, technology or art.

Staying at the level of such trivial examples, it is difficult, of course, to feel the fundamental role that the operation of definition plays in human thinking. Therefore, we complicate the examples.

The philosopher Plato identified man as a two-legged besperoe creature. The focus of this definition is obvious. Of all living creatures, two-legs are only birds and people. But all the birds are covered with feathers, the “two-legged bears" are, therefore, only humans. Another philosopher, Diogenes, plucked a chicken and threw it at the feet of Plato with the words: "Here is your man." After this, Plato clarified his definition: “A man is a two-legged, bare-footed creature with wide nails.”

Another philosopher described man as a creature with a soft earlobe. By some whim of nature, it turned out that of all living things only a person has a soft earlobe.

One of the tasks of the definition is to distinguish and delimit the object being defined from all others. Both Plato's definition, and the definition referring to the soft earlobe, allow for the unmistakable and simple separation of people from all other creatures.

Can it be said that these definitions reveal some deep content of the concept of "man"? Of course not. They are focused on purely external and random features of a person and do not say anything about him in essence. Would a person cease to be himself if his nails were a little bit narrower or were a hard earlobe? I think no.

In addition to the delimitation of the objects to be determined, the requirement to reveal the essence of these objects is usually presented to the definition.

With this requirement and often associated with the difficult problems of defining specific concepts. It is easy to distinguish objects that fall under the concept, for some superficial, inconsequential features, such as broad nails or soft earlobes. But it is difficult to do this by the deep, essential attributes of objects that make the latter what they are.

To give a good definition is to reveal the essence of the object being defined. But the essence, as a rule, does not lie on the surface. In addition, behind the essence of the first level there is always a deeper essence of the second level, behind that - the essence of the third level and so on to infinity. This possibility of unlimited deepening into the essence of even a simple object makes clear the difficulties that arise in the way of definition, and explains why the definitions of seemingly the same things change over time. The deepening of knowledge about these things leads to a change in ideas about their essence, and hence their definitions.

It is also necessary to take into account the known relativity of the essence: essential for one goal may be secondary from the point of view of another goal.

For example, in geometry, different definitions of the notion “line” can be used to prove different theorems. And it can hardly be said that one of them reveals the deeper essence of this concept than all the others.

Hungarian writer I.Rat-Veg in the “Comedy of the Book” mentions a certain old author who was extremely disliked by the theater. Attitude to the theater, this author considered so important that he defined the rest through it. Paradise, he wrote, is a place where there is no theater, the devil is the inventor of theater and dance; Kings - people who are especially shameful to go to the theater and patronize actors, etc. Of course, these definitions are superficial from all points of view. With all but one: to one who seriously considers theater as the source of all the evils and misfortunes that exist in the world, these definitions may seem to capture the essence of the matter.

Thus, the definition may be more or less deep, and its depth depends, first of all, on the level of knowledge about the subject being defined. The better and deeper we know it, the more likely it is that we will be able to find a good definition of it.

Writer F. Rabelais left the famous definition of man as an animal that laughs. Already in the XX century. The French philosopher A. Bergson also saw - not without irony, of course, - a distinctive feature of a person in the ability to laugh, and especially in the ability to make others laugh. Clumsy or funny animal movements can cause laughter. But the animal is never given a special purpose to laugh. It does not laugh itself and does not try to make others laugh. Only a man laughs and laughs.

Writer J. Cardan defined man as a creature capable of deceiving and constantly deceiving both himself and others. The philosopher A. Schopenhauer, who was prone to pessimism and melancholy, considered man to be a tragic animal, which lacked instinct for confident, unmistakable actions, and the ns that had appeared in his mind could not be replaced by this instinct.

The list of such definitions could be continued. For a long time, many of them were put forward. However, they are not only numerous, but also clearly shallow, since they mainly solve the problem of separating a person from other living beings, but leave aside the question of his essence.

The interest of these definitions is different. Their abundance is well underlined by the fact that the more complex an object is, the more multifaceted it is, the more definitions it can be given.

In particular, in our time, when the unique complexity of a person is realized, the number of proposed definitions has sharply increased. Man is defined as a "rational being." But it is defined both as an “economic creature”, and as a “creature using symbols”, and as an “aesthetic creature”, etc. All these and similar definitions capture some distinctive features of a person. But the true depth is not here. From the fact that a person is very concerned about his economic problems, one cannot conclude anything about his attitude to the beautiful, and vice versa. It is impossible to extract any knowledge about economic, aesthetic and other aspects of his life from the wide use of symbols by man. A good definition should not only distinguish man from all other beings. It should contain in its concentrated form a fairly complete characteristic of it, from which its other important features would flow.

From this point of view, the definition of a person as a creature producing tools is deeper. This is, ultimately, due to his special attitude to the economy, symbols, the beautiful, etc.