In a conversation today I was accused of defining something exclusively. (You can't believe it. I know.) I tried to point out to the person that definitions are....by definition...exclusive. This means this and this and by necessary implication not that and that. You can enlarge or diminish the range of a definition but in the end you have to draw a line. To define is always to exclude. Otherwise we wind up with Hegel's "night in which all cows are black."
Well, then, said outraged interlocutor, we shouldn't have any definitions at all.
Man, said Aristotle, is a rational animal. Boy, what an optimist!
3 comments:
I have had similar thoughts about those who are "against labels." While I think one can be critical of /particular/ implications of particular labels, you can't just be against the whole thing -- we need something to think about people with. I also notice that the against-labels-type is usually a lefty who is quite happy with whatever label-scheme they apply to their various 'enemies', while not conscious of the contradiction.
--Nathan
"Seldom affirm, never deny, and avoid distinguishing"?
"Seldom affirm, never deny, and avoid distinguishing"
Breathing new life into an old Scholastic adage, ready for the pomo 21st century!
Post a Comment