EPISTEMOLOGY PART 5: DEFINITIONS AND "ANTI-CONCEPTS"
Hopefully not a representation of your mental file folder!
If concepts are like file folders in our brains, then definitions would be like the labels. A label is obviously essential, otherwise it would be easy to mix up or confuse the folders together. It's important to make sure the label is appropriate. If the IRS audits you and you're trying to find your tax return from 2008, but you only have a folder labeled "Finances", it could be a long and possibly unsuccessful search!
Definitions are necessary for all concepts, except axiomatic concepts and ones denoting sensations. Trying to define "red" or "cold" is futile, as it's a sensory experience. "Red" is self-evident to those who have color vision, but there would be no way to explain it to someone who is blind.
The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts. To do this properly, we need to use all of our available knowledge to figure out what its essential characteristics are so we can form a concise definition (usually in a sentence or two). For instance, if we were to define "human", we wouldn't say "an animal that stands upright with two legs, has a brain, a heart, two kidneys, two lungs, a liver, stomach, skin, intestines, has the ability to think, has a powerful brain but is infallible..."(into infinity!). While all these are true, they are not the defining characteristics, and thus this isn't an appropriate definition. Imagine writing this much information to label every folder in your drawer! A more concise definition for human like, "a rational animal" would be much better, as this defines the essential characteristic of a human and can separate it from our other concepts like dog, cat, etc. (The fact that many humans don't always act rational not withstanding!)
Definitions are necessary for all concepts, except axiomatic concepts and ones denoting sensations. Trying to define "red" or "cold" is futile, as it's a sensory experience. "Red" is self-evident to those who have color vision, but there would be no way to explain it to someone who is blind.
The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts. To do this properly, we need to use all of our available knowledge to figure out what its essential characteristics are so we can form a concise definition (usually in a sentence or two). For instance, if we were to define "human", we wouldn't say "an animal that stands upright with two legs, has a brain, a heart, two kidneys, two lungs, a liver, stomach, skin, intestines, has the ability to think, has a powerful brain but is infallible..."(into infinity!). While all these are true, they are not the defining characteristics, and thus this isn't an appropriate definition. Imagine writing this much information to label every folder in your drawer! A more concise definition for human like, "a rational animal" would be much better, as this defines the essential characteristic of a human and can separate it from our other concepts like dog, cat, etc. (The fact that many humans don't always act rational not withstanding!)
CONCEPTS ARE CONTEXTUAL
This is extremely important to understand, as all human knowledge is contextual. We are not omniscient, and cannot know everything about the universe (claiming omniscience would be a supernatural claim). However, even if we don't know everything, we can still come up with definitions of concepts that are correct and are based in reality, even if we still acknowledge that they are based on our contextual knowledge.
Let's start again with an infant. The first (implicit) definition a child might have of "human" might be "a thing that moves and makes sounds". Within the limited contextual knowledge of a baby, this may be enough to distinguish a human from all of its other knowledge, like tables and chairs. However, as the child experiences more things and forms new concepts, this definition will soon need to be updated. When the child discovers dogs, cats and automobiles, now "a thing that moves and makes sounds" doesn't distinguish a human anymore. Perhaps a new definition would be, "a thing that walks on two legs and has no fur". Notice, that this new definition does not contradict the old one, it just redefines it within the child's more advanced knowledge. As adults, we have an even greater context of knowledge, and if we take all we currently know about humans as well as the rest of the world around us, the definition "a rational animal" is a very concise and accurate way to distinguish humans from the rest of our concepts.
However, this doesn't mean this definition can never be updated again. All concepts (as well as all knowledge) are open-ended. As we learn more and more about our world, our context keeps expanding, and it may be necessary to change our definitions. Perhaps we discover aliens, like in Avatar, that are also rational beings. No longer would "rational animal" separate human from the rest of our concepts, so a new one would need to be created. Again, notice that "rational animal" is still correct when applied to humans, it's just not a defining characteristic anymore. With very rare exceptions, all concepts that are created properly will still be grounded in reality even when we discover new knowledge, and this is very empowering to realize. While concepts are contextual, they are NOT arbitrary. This means that, even though I can't know everything, I can be confident that what I do know is correct and based in reality (assuming you follow the proper cognitive path, reason).
This is extremely important to understand, as all human knowledge is contextual. We are not omniscient, and cannot know everything about the universe (claiming omniscience would be a supernatural claim). However, even if we don't know everything, we can still come up with definitions of concepts that are correct and are based in reality, even if we still acknowledge that they are based on our contextual knowledge.
Let's start again with an infant. The first (implicit) definition a child might have of "human" might be "a thing that moves and makes sounds". Within the limited contextual knowledge of a baby, this may be enough to distinguish a human from all of its other knowledge, like tables and chairs. However, as the child experiences more things and forms new concepts, this definition will soon need to be updated. When the child discovers dogs, cats and automobiles, now "a thing that moves and makes sounds" doesn't distinguish a human anymore. Perhaps a new definition would be, "a thing that walks on two legs and has no fur". Notice, that this new definition does not contradict the old one, it just redefines it within the child's more advanced knowledge. As adults, we have an even greater context of knowledge, and if we take all we currently know about humans as well as the rest of the world around us, the definition "a rational animal" is a very concise and accurate way to distinguish humans from the rest of our concepts.
However, this doesn't mean this definition can never be updated again. All concepts (as well as all knowledge) are open-ended. As we learn more and more about our world, our context keeps expanding, and it may be necessary to change our definitions. Perhaps we discover aliens, like in Avatar, that are also rational beings. No longer would "rational animal" separate human from the rest of our concepts, so a new one would need to be created. Again, notice that "rational animal" is still correct when applied to humans, it's just not a defining characteristic anymore. With very rare exceptions, all concepts that are created properly will still be grounded in reality even when we discover new knowledge, and this is very empowering to realize. While concepts are contextual, they are NOT arbitrary. This means that, even though I can't know everything, I can be confident that what I do know is correct and based in reality (assuming you follow the proper cognitive path, reason).
RULE OF FUNDAMENTALITY
This rule states that in order to define something, you must figure out what is distinctive about it and what sets it apart from everything else. In other words, what is fundamental about that concept. If we go back to our concept of "human", it may be factually true that people can read, write, talk, build and fly airplanes, compose symphonies, and create really horrible movies, but those aren't defining characteristics. It would be a mistake to define human as "an animal that can fly airplanes". While it's true that we can, this would imply that flying airplanes is essential to our being human, and not get into what truly sets us apart. If we observe that all these activities (reading, talking, flying, etc.) involve the ability to form a conceptual grasp of reality, and that no other animal possesses this ability, now we're on to something! It's our ability to reason and think that sets us apart and is the best defining characteristic. You can take away a leg, an arm, a kidney, even get rid of all the airplanes and you'd still have the crucial element of a human left. However, if you take away our most defining characteristic, the ability to reason, you're taking all the "humanity" out of human. This makes it the most essential characteristic, and thus "rational animal" is a good contextual definition. Keep in mind that everything about people, "lungs, heart, airplanes, etc." still applies, it's just not necessary in the definition. If we think back to the file folder and labels in a drawer, we can put all sorts of data into our file folder of "human", but the label should still be small no matter how much information we stuff in.
This rule states that in order to define something, you must figure out what is distinctive about it and what sets it apart from everything else. In other words, what is fundamental about that concept. If we go back to our concept of "human", it may be factually true that people can read, write, talk, build and fly airplanes, compose symphonies, and create really horrible movies, but those aren't defining characteristics. It would be a mistake to define human as "an animal that can fly airplanes". While it's true that we can, this would imply that flying airplanes is essential to our being human, and not get into what truly sets us apart. If we observe that all these activities (reading, talking, flying, etc.) involve the ability to form a conceptual grasp of reality, and that no other animal possesses this ability, now we're on to something! It's our ability to reason and think that sets us apart and is the best defining characteristic. You can take away a leg, an arm, a kidney, even get rid of all the airplanes and you'd still have the crucial element of a human left. However, if you take away our most defining characteristic, the ability to reason, you're taking all the "humanity" out of human. This makes it the most essential characteristic, and thus "rational animal" is a good contextual definition. Keep in mind that everything about people, "lungs, heart, airplanes, etc." still applies, it's just not necessary in the definition. If we think back to the file folder and labels in a drawer, we can put all sorts of data into our file folder of "human", but the label should still be small no matter how much information we stuff in.
Remember, rational doesn't mean infallible
The opposite of following this rule can be found in certain psychotics. A schizophrenic in a New York City hospital once equated sex, cigars and Jesus Christ together. He did so, because he attributed one characteristic, "encirclement", to all three of these concepts. He explained that in sex the man encircles the woman, a cigar is encircled by a tax band, and Jesus is encircled by a halo. In essence, just like defining a human as "an animal who can fly a plane", this guy defined sex, cigars and Jesus improperly. The defining characteristic of a cigar is not that it is encircled by a tax band, Jesus might have a halo around him in certain drawings but it's not an essential characteristic, and sex certainly shouldn't be defined as "an act of encirclement". An error of this magnitude will destroy the concepts we've worked so hard to create. It would be like putting the label "college" on our tax return folder, medical bills folder, and legal bills folder because an accountant, a doctor, and a lawyer all need to go to college. If definitions aren't carefully made, the end result could be sitting in a mental hospital associating sex, cigars and Jesus together!
|
|
|
A "polarizing" President
ANTI-CONCEPTS
Before we finish up on concepts, let's quickly touch on "anti-concepts". The problem here, is not that we define something incorrectly, but that we use a concept improperly, or create one that has no basis in reality. Anti-concepts are terms that are often quite common, and that are used to replace, distract, or obliterate legitimate concepts. However, when logically confronted, they fall apart, as they are either used improperly, or are undefinable to begin with. When they become common in popular culture, they are harmful, as they have the effect of allowing us to avoid reality.
One example is the word "extremism". Usually, this term is used to intimidate or cast an idea or a person as crazy or undesirable, without actually confronting the idea. There is actually no such thing as "extremism" as it relates to ideas. Either an idea is true or it's false. Usually, "extremism" refers to someone who follows a particular dogma or belief system consistently. If their belief system is faulty or has errors, then following it consistently will also lead to errors and potentially be destructive (like a suicide bomber). However, this doesn't make the idea "extreme", just wrong. We shouldn't condemn a terrorist for being "extreme", as that has no real meaning. We should attack their ideas as wrong, and realize when you act on wrong ideas, the resulting actions are not suprisingly...wrong! On the other hand, ideas that are correct and held consistently could result in a statement like Patrick Henry saying, "Give me liberty or give me death". This is a similarly "extreme" view. What makes it different from the terrorist is that he took a correct idea and held it as an absolute. Willing to fight and die for liberty (provided you've identified liberty rationally), is a virtue, and holding to that ideal consistently is a good thing. "Extremism" as a concept holds no real meaning, and unfortunately it's used far too often today to avoid taking on an argument and trying to smear someone or a movement. Other examples of anti-concepts that either aren't based in reality or used improperly could include "polarization", "isolationist", "simplistic", "duty", "ethnicity" "sixth-sense" and "collective-bargaining rights".
Concepts are truly incredible things. They give us the power to learn, create, love, and to be human. However, they are not automatic functions of our body. They have to be worked at, and have the possibility of errors. They give people the ability to go to the moon and write a timeless novel, but also to destroy civilizations and commit evil acts. It's important that we constantly are aware and think about our concepts, and "double-check" them to make sure they are based in reality and are correct. The good news, is that we know that when formed properly, concepts are NOT an illusion, but the way for our consciousness to perceive and know existence. This should be empowering, and the next step in epistemology is to find out how to think properly, and decide which ways are and aren't valid means of obtaining human knowledge.
Before we finish up on concepts, let's quickly touch on "anti-concepts". The problem here, is not that we define something incorrectly, but that we use a concept improperly, or create one that has no basis in reality. Anti-concepts are terms that are often quite common, and that are used to replace, distract, or obliterate legitimate concepts. However, when logically confronted, they fall apart, as they are either used improperly, or are undefinable to begin with. When they become common in popular culture, they are harmful, as they have the effect of allowing us to avoid reality.
One example is the word "extremism". Usually, this term is used to intimidate or cast an idea or a person as crazy or undesirable, without actually confronting the idea. There is actually no such thing as "extremism" as it relates to ideas. Either an idea is true or it's false. Usually, "extremism" refers to someone who follows a particular dogma or belief system consistently. If their belief system is faulty or has errors, then following it consistently will also lead to errors and potentially be destructive (like a suicide bomber). However, this doesn't make the idea "extreme", just wrong. We shouldn't condemn a terrorist for being "extreme", as that has no real meaning. We should attack their ideas as wrong, and realize when you act on wrong ideas, the resulting actions are not suprisingly...wrong! On the other hand, ideas that are correct and held consistently could result in a statement like Patrick Henry saying, "Give me liberty or give me death". This is a similarly "extreme" view. What makes it different from the terrorist is that he took a correct idea and held it as an absolute. Willing to fight and die for liberty (provided you've identified liberty rationally), is a virtue, and holding to that ideal consistently is a good thing. "Extremism" as a concept holds no real meaning, and unfortunately it's used far too often today to avoid taking on an argument and trying to smear someone or a movement. Other examples of anti-concepts that either aren't based in reality or used improperly could include "polarization", "isolationist", "simplistic", "duty", "ethnicity" "sixth-sense" and "collective-bargaining rights".
Concepts are truly incredible things. They give us the power to learn, create, love, and to be human. However, they are not automatic functions of our body. They have to be worked at, and have the possibility of errors. They give people the ability to go to the moon and write a timeless novel, but also to destroy civilizations and commit evil acts. It's important that we constantly are aware and think about our concepts, and "double-check" them to make sure they are based in reality and are correct. The good news, is that we know that when formed properly, concepts are NOT an illusion, but the way for our consciousness to perceive and know existence. This should be empowering, and the next step in epistemology is to find out how to think properly, and decide which ways are and aren't valid means of obtaining human knowledge.
