See:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhElEcuNEcmV4axwAxo_Ip7sy6IX?qid=20060627104657AAuC3UB
2006-06-28 07:36:54 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think part of this hinges on what constitutes an "adequate" definition. Adequate for what purposes? Adequate compared to what standard?
It is true that we may recognize that there are areas in which we do not yet understand the truth as we would like, and we continue to search. However, in "everyday" life, we usually have a "working definition" which suits our "everyday" purposes adequately--and that keeps us from being too disturbed over it.
Sure, we'd like to firm up those definitions if we can. But what are the odds that we could get everyone to accept those "true definitions" if we found them? We'd still be disturbed by what we see happening around us everyday!
2006-06-28 07:59:53 · answer #1 · answered by tdw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is. But that leads us to think, and to ponder, which is a good thing.
That said, though, I've been to panel discussions where people take the entire time allotted trying to define their terms, without ever getting beyond some basic question, like "What is a fairy tale?" because every person in the room has his or her own idea and wants to be heard.
I know Socrates said we should always start by defining our terms, but Socrates wasn't right about everything. If you're in a room full of people, and you can't agree on a definition, sometimes it's time to just accept that the definition is still in dispute, list some of the working definitions that are on the table, and then move on. If it matters later, you can always say, "This is a fairy tale by Bettelheim's definition, but not by Campbell's," or something like that.
2006-06-28 16:55:16 · answer #2 · answered by thunderpigeon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought porno could be defined as an image, piece of literature, or other depiction of a sexually arousing act or event in a socially unacceptable way. It's disturbing only that this Justice didn't bother taking the time to be objective, but that's a political question, not philosophical. I don't believe anything can defy categorization or definition for long if we work at it.
By the way, if my definition seems lacking, by all means feel free to modify it. I don't claim ownership of something that should be public. If you're feeling inspired, forward it to the Honorable Justice.
2006-06-28 15:05:53 · answer #3 · answered by Fenris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Philosophy is a search for answers, "truths" if you will. As finite beings, we cannot truly comprehend the infinite, but we keep trying. There are some questions which may not be answered in this world, but we keep trying. We can't sure the common cold, but...
2006-06-28 14:41:28 · answer #4 · answered by aboukir200 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fortunately we can avoid this conundrum by not elevating ourselves to the position of philosopher!
2006-06-30 10:16:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope... because humans are unique and we understand, see and feel things differently. Why there needs to be a standard definition when we are dealing with non-standard subjects?
2006-06-28 14:42:44 · answer #6 · answered by masku darling 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I don't find this disturbing; I find it refreshing. If we all had the same thresholds and opinions, it would be a pretty boring world. :)
2006-06-29 17:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋