Q&A: Defining Concepts
Defining Concepts
Question
Hello Rabbi, I listened to the first lesson in the above series, and two questions came up for me about what was said there. I’d appreciate some clarification:
A. The Rabbi said that Aristotle defines by genus and species. When the Rabbi explained it, the first is the significant/common aspect, and the second is the distinguishing feature, separating it from the other species within the genus. For example, you gave that a human being is a “speaking living being.” I couldn’t understand why it isn’t enough to define it simply as “speaking,” since that seemingly creates a group consisting only of “human.” In other words, there is no other “speaking” thing in that genus that is not “living.” Unless the purpose of a definition is not only to point to a certain group and cut it off from the rest, but also to characterize it—but I don’t think the Rabbi mentioned anything like that.
B. The Rabbi concluded by saying that there is a dispute between Aristotle and Plato: whether a definition is trying to identify something that exists (the idea of __) or whether it is a useful fictional process. I didn’t really understand what it means to say that there is a real idea, only that it has not been actualized. That is, why really isn’t it simpler to say that a definition is just attaching a set of characteristics to one word?
Thank you very much
Answer
A. First, in this case that species does not exist under another genus. But if you want a general framework, you need genus and species. Second, as you wrote, the genus adds an understanding of the context.
B. The question is not what is simpler, but what is more correct. I gave arguments there in favor of the ontic interpretation (the Platonic one). For example, the debate about concepts.
Discussion on Answer
It sounds a bit absurd to me to expand here on a topic to which I devoted an entire series of lessons. If you have a specific question (preferably after you listen to the lessons), you can raise it here.
That’s perfectly fine, I completely understand. I’ll come back to ask again (if necessary) after I finish listening to everything. I’ll just note that the questions weren’t associative, but about things that were said, and as I recall the Rabbi already tried to explain them in the first lesson, which is why I decided to ask even though I haven’t finished. And it also seems to me that the question is specific (even if the answer to it may be long—I have no idea).
You did indeed say that according to Plato’s approach (which is also your view), there is significance to debates about concepts and definitions. But I still didn’t sufficiently understand what the debate is—meaning, what exactly is the claim that there is some idea? Right now that doesn’t mean anything to me. If I remember correctly, you said there is a practical implication, namely that there should be some connection between the different characteristics, but I’m not sure, and I’m also not sure why that is true. I’d be glad if the Rabbi could elaborate.