From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 00:08:43 MST
John writes
> I also think trying to find an exact definition of survival and death is
> pointless, like most things we learn the meaning of those words from
> example not definition.
That's exactly right! Korzybski referred to "intensional" definitions
and "extensional" definitions. Among the former were Aristotelian
definitions whereby a tree is *defined* as [I forget the twenty word
technical definition] and a human being is *defined* as a featherless
biped. The latter are "by example" and "by operational definition".
No one learns the meanings of words in the Aristotlean fashion.
Just as you say, people (especially children) best learn the use
of words by example. One even learns what "hebetude" means by
learning a number of synonyms that the dictionary refers one to;
and one learned the meanings of *those* words from usage (context)
and example.
("hebetude" was Word of the Day on Nov 8:
http://www.dictionary.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/11/08.html
Note the utility of the examples.)
Precise definitions and axioms are necessary (SFAIK) only in
mathematics, and it's been noted that a lot of thinkers in
less crystalline (and perhaps more difficult) fields of inquiry
appear to display "math envy".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:51 MST