Contextual sensitivity to ostensive definition picks out only particulars, so that that immediate mediation sought in signing is always already exceeded in the general. Distinction, insofar as it is general, is always already breached in the trace of the general borne in the particular.
Definition of things and ideas depends on our ability to communicate personal experiences with the thing or idea. IMHO. there are no purely objective definitions. Time, change, new information alter our definitions. Black holes, for example,
are presently a matter of theory based on concepts of what is going on in the universe. Our experience with black holes is theoretical. No one has had direct experience with one. We believe they exist based on authority. Authority can be wrong.
Theory is based on the best possible, current interpretation of events.
Definitions are merely our own constructs. They are never “wrong”. They might be useless due to not fitting any part of reality, but they cannot be wrong from whatever they are declared to be. A unicorn is defined as what it is. It doesn’t have to exist in order to be defined.
The effort is to get a collection of defined concepts that when assembled, exactly match reality (an accurate ontology). That is the construct of “Truth”. Of course as many are busy doing that, others are busily trying to make sure that never happens, that truth is never known (by anyone but their own team).
How would one define an apple analytically? “fruit growing from the apple tree” - obviously this is circular. How else?
I think this touches on a profound difficulty: analytical definitions must be circular. Like math must be circular, or the defined must at least already be included in or implied by the set of terms that is used to build the definition from.
(Wittgensteins conundrum was that language is too weak to provide such backbone to its own contents)
If the definition is not circular, it must always point to a “synthetic item”, an object of (presumed) common knowledge.
Lets define a car.
A vehicle (?1) propelled by an engine (?2) that can transport (?3) beings across a road or open terrain…??
Its really quite difficult.
James wrote:
"
That actually moved me, James. It was somehow beautiful. At the same time, it was somewhat sad.
A tree is {like} a beautiful shady canopy in summertime owning its own color.
Words are sometimes capable of painting pictures where definitions can’t…for me.
Of course, one would have had to see at least one canopy and colors in their lifetime.
(not analytical, I know)
From Merriam-Webster:
[b][i]Full Definition of morality
- 1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
- 2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b: plural: particular moral principles or rules of conduct
- 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
- 4: moral conduct : virtue
Full Definition of abortion
- 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: asa: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriageb: induced expulsion of a human fetusc: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare 1. contagious abortion
- 2: monstrosity
- 3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest[/i][/b]
Now, using these definitions in conjunction with RM/AO, how would you go about determining if any one particular abortion is either moral or immoral?
What in fact might the limitations of the “analytic mind” be in determining this?
There is only a small critical need for the analytical mind.
The trick is to know when it isn’t there even that much.
And then to figure out what to do about it.
Until then, it is all just fun and games.
… and … emm… dasein.
Can we define dasein without using the dictionary?
Life. “Being there”.
Okay, disclose the trick involved when the efficacy of an analytic mind is needed here:
…using these definitions [of morality and abortion above] in conjunction with RM/AO, how would you go about determining if any one particular abortion is either moral or immoral?
So much more to the point [mine] we can situate the meaning of dasein [mine] out in the world that we live in:
[b][i]a man amidst mankind…
That is the paradox, right? I am an individual…a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called “mankind”. So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological “self” [the me “I” know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me “I” project – often as a chameleon – in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?
How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?
No, I don’t think so.
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
On the other hand:
In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.
Or, of course, is that just my foundation?[/i][/b]
How then would a serious philosopher [employing an “analytic mind”] critique this? How is this – logically, epistemologically – an example of unsound reasoning?
You avoided the question.
This is the first time I’ve addressed your dasien idea.
Conflicting goods means that opposing goods are equal… Which means there is no good.
You need an ego to respond to your name.
Wow… It took me two sentences to turn thousands of posts into bullshit.
Heidegger’s
dasein
Good.
Not necessarily.
Not at all.
My laptop does it.
Should anyone decide to start a petition in favour of banning the word “dasein” they can certainly count on my support.
Uccisore!!!
Alright… If the good conflict rather than resolve, by definition they must be equal!!! Think it through before you reply!!!
As for the very clever laptop comment…
It is a fact that in order for you to respond to your own name or person … You Must have an ego …
Again, think it through before you respond!!
Goods don’t conflict or resolve on their own, they do it through human actions, and humans can be wrong, or come to varied conclusions. To take an example you should be familiar with, a society can decide through force or legislation that people being alive is more important than people being happy, and thus outlaw abortion, suicide, the death penalty, and so on. Just because they come to a resolution doesn’t mean they are right. It’s entirely possible that the good of being alive and the good of being happy are equal, and that society just made a choice. It’s also possible for some other society to decide in some other way.
And of course this is true of individuals as well: I can decide that I’m willing to give up some of my freedom in exchange for prosperity in the form of a better, more demanding job. Just because I have resolved to value prosperity more than freedom doesn’t say much about the goods in themselves, as somebody else may decide another way.
So voice activated software has an ‘ego’ to you. Got it.
Note to others:
What so you think…has he barely scratched the surface? 
Voice activated software is not the internal responding to stimulus, it’s really a quibble about the definition of “you”… Which any “you” will understand. When I say “in order for you” I mean you, a being that is aware of being a you… Were basically splitting hairs over Turing, or philosophical zombies… Using uncertainty as proof of an argument from ignorance… Which I’ll allow as NOT a fallacy in this exception… But even if you run the set, it is true that you must have an ego to respond to your being, even if all things that respond to their being don’t have egos!!!
Nah… You assume there’s no objective truth…
Conflicting goods is an argument of relativism for goodness itself, which nullifies the term “good” and dasein collapses on itself using a meta argument.
Maybe once be masters arithmetic and has a basic grasp of critical thinking he can try out some phenomenonlogy.