Q&A: Definitions of Concepts
Definitions of Concepts
Question
In several places you wrote about essential definitions as opposed to definitions that are not essential to a thing.
Question: (a) Is there any indication, method, or way to identify and distinguish between the different kinds of definitions? For example, that the essential definition of a table is not “a rectangular object” but “an item used to place things on.” Maybe these definitions aren’t correct, but just for the sake of example. Is there some method or skill for figuring out what is essential as opposed to external? (b) Following from that, how does one arrive at the essential definition? Is there a method for that? For example, the term “democracy” — when will I know that I’ve understood the essential layer and not the external one? Is there some sign, or is it purely intuition?
Answer
I never wrote anywhere about a non-essential definition. What I wrote, as far as I remember, is that a definition should include only the essential components of the thing and not its incidental ones. I don’t have a criterion, and there cannot be one. If I had a criterion, we wouldn’t need definitions. The definition reflects my conception of the thing, and based on that conception I determine what is essential and what is incidental.
Discussion on Answer
The tip is to think and examine different examples of the concept. See my series of articles on poetry. There there is a systematic analysis of how one arrives at a definition of a complex concept, which may perhaps be helpful to you.
I don’t remember.
In everyday matters it usually isn’t black and white; rather, each component has a weight.
For example, in the definition of a table, “a rectangular object” has a weight of 2.4, and “people put things on it” has a weight of 6.9, and so on.
For each person it’s different. If an artist draws something that resembles a table in several components with different weights, some will identify it as a table and some won’t.
What that means is that there is no essence to the table (contrary to the claim of guessers and magicians that things have essences); rather, there is an essence to the concept of a table (the concept exists in the mind), and for each person that essence is different, because the weights of the different components are different.
Regarding the question of where the Rabbi spoke about a rabbi who went bad:
Under the title “A Righteous Person to Whom It Goes Bad?”
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a6%d7%93%d7%99%d7%a7-%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%a2-%d7%91%d7%95
Has the Rabbi written an article on “definitions”? Someone told me that the Rabbi is planning to write a book on definitions, on the capacity, on the meaning of definition, etc. Is that true?
I haven’t written one. There was a plan to do it with someone who wanted to work with me on it. In the meantime it didn’t progress, and he backed out.
Too bad. If possible, at least dedicate a few posts to it like that…
I miss the long posts on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), poetry, Marxism, etc….
Okay, but do you have any tip or way we can get to the essential components of a thing?
By the way: I remember you wrote somewhere about the figure of a rabbi who steals or commits rape — does that damage the essence of a rabbi or not? Where can I find that?