|
|
Posted by mbstevens on 11/19/61 11:34
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> "mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:C_rnf.3541$Tg2.1085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>It's very *unaustralian* ;-)
>>
>>>>Yes, but how do you define it in words?
>>
>>>I mean, if you say that a certain behaviour is unaustralian, then you
>
> need
>
>>>define what is australian!
>>
>>No, you just need to know that it is against _one_ of the qualities you
>>associate with being a thing. You don't need some _complete_ definition.
>>
>>Let's say you are acquainted with a Mr. X. You know that he wears only
>>blue suits. You have seen him on the bus every day for years, always
>>only in blue suits, but that's about all you know about him. If you saw
>>him one day wearing a bright red suit, you could say that it is un-X
>>kind of thing to do. But that is very different from having a
>>definition of Mr. X.
>
>
> But you still define Mr. X with reference to the colour of his suit.
> In your example you assume that Mr. X usually has blue suits and that it
> what the positive definition is about.
This "positive" definition is likely a kind of weird Semiotic technical
term for what a definition is. You can't expect the rest of us to buy
into anything like that. It all dates back to the structuralist
"signifier/signified" - world-made-of-language claptrap.
The only thing I actually have a _full_ definition for is sentential and
predicate logic, and similar formal systems.
I don't believe that some truck that's about to run over me will
disappear if I don't have a definition for it. That would simply be
unreasonable. No, I prefer to step out of the way of the truck.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|