Philosophy of definitions

Why do I consider my essays on distinction such an important part of my contributions to aaqgs, i.e. my whole life and belief system? Once you master a subject, the first realistic summation of the entire work of life is a definition that only a master can provide that correctly delineates “what is” and “what is not”. So hard is this that one can simply ask the unbelieving nut to define a human. A famous stoic joke goes the victim was Sir Aristotle himself while the tormentor was a stoic. After lengthy deliberations, Sir defined a human as a bipedal animal without feathers. Next morning he was amazed to see a plucked chicken strutting in his garden.

It is my belief that definitions are very hard, i.e. semantics is very hard absent a category theoretic viewpoint and mastery of philosophical fallacies – avoidable and intrinsic. Most people are unfamiliar with Godel impossibility proof and often employ second order logic for its conciseness. They can be easily emfubarred! Lawyers don't emit as many, but do so from experience, not knowledge and can be severely emfubarred with some patience. In general, people avoid second order thinking in area of expertise, but ARE second order outside often from efficiency reasons, likely to think their expertise extends outside their area, and can be severely mauled with some patience. Trick is to move them away from expertise.

This is a general trick, works in general. I am in fact an excellent author of “How to make enemies and annoy every one” and have slowly learned that not many are influenced by your winning arguments but every victory generates a long term enemy. Sugar coated pills are absolutely required in life. You must understand the other argument and defeat it by pointing out its shortcomings, some are NOT considered by other side.

Having broadly considered argumentation, why did Sir Aristotle feel trapped, i.e. what did the stoic do? Create a distinct object not found in nature. What Sir Aristotle was doing is a qualified generality definition, where qualification were placed on general idea of biped animal. Every such definition is lot easier if made as distinction in likely confusing circumstances. There is NO reason at all to make qualification so specific that ONLY the thing being defined satisfies them! Sir could have defined human as biped+no feathers+Delhi courts. The plucked chicken would be considered as the exception While not all judges in Delhi are sane enough, there is always high and supreme court. It is unlikely they would let ANY judge who ruled Sir chicken as human, stand!