Is it impossible to define words adequately?

Question

When I try to define words, it seems that the process is interminable. I can never arrive at a satisfactory non-arbitrary definition for any term. Assume that I want to define the term "masculine." Would it be possible for me or is it possible for anyone to define "masculine" without being arbitrary. Think of Derrida here and the celebrated logocentrism of Platonic thought or the western "metaphysics of presence" that has pervaded human thought.

By "adequate," I mean (primarily) a definition that is non-arbitrary, one not arrived at on the basis of some community standard or group that decides "masculine" means X or "art" denotes Y. For instance, I took a philosophy of art course one semester and I discovered that most philosophers insist that art must be defined as a human artifact (usually produced for the sake of aesthestic) contemplation). But how do they arrive at this denotation for art? That art must be a "human artifact" seems quite arbitrary to me. Such examples could be multiplied. Why does a term mean this rather than that? It seems that in a number of cases, the reason for a certain term meaning X is the arbitrary decision of a community.

Let us take the word "evil" as an example. What is "evil"? What does the term denote? Certain thinkers say that evil is a privation of the good. Others define the term as "a positive bad state" (Richard Swinburne). Evil might also be defined as that which causes harm, distress or pain. Moreover, study the field of metaphor theory and you will see the problem of indefinability raise its head with a vengeance.

Colin Gunton indicates that metaphor is too complex for any one definition. Even in 1964, he points out, there was one author who could allude to 125 definitions for “metaphor.” Is metaphor a conceptual domain, a trope, a condensed simile, a nominal transference or . . . ?

Answer 1

No, it is not..

Answer 2

Perhaps you have to define what it is to "define a word adequately." (Oh, wait - that'll cause even more trouble!)

Rather, let me ask - what would it take to satisfy you?

Let me start with a story. Suppose I hear a new word, "shisha." I have never heard it before, now I want an adequate definition (whatever that is). In fact, this happened a few years ago. The person said that it was something you smoke out of, that there is water in it and a mouthpiece, and so forth, and also used the word "water pipe." Being acquainted with water pipes prior, I found this a completely adequate definition and have had no problem understanding and using the word since then.

However, suppose that when they said "water pipe" I said "what is a water pipe?" Well, we can still get by awkwardly: it is a sort of pipe, and the smoke bubbles through the tank (etc.) - these are the sorts of explanations we have to give to children, or foreigners. But now suppose the foreigner says "what is smoking" and so on down the line. Clearly we'd never have an end of it, for each word leads to at least one other word, if not more, until we are soon explaining every word in the language. The same would even apply for more apparently clear-cut words than "bachelor" (for what do 'male' and 'single' mean?)

I think the possibility of doing this does not prove that it is impossible to define words adequately. Rather, what it says to me is that people have got a false, "tractarian" view of what definition ought to do - that definition is supposed to end in a definition in some special, privileged FOUNDATIONAL terms. (Think of a tree with roots at the bottom: everything has to go down to the roots.) (Logical) positivist types might have identified descriptions in sensory terms in this way. Sellars talks about lots of the problems with this viewpoint.

Of course, it is famously difficult to produce a satisfying *phenomenological* definition of anything at all - say, "chair" -(and, it seems, likely impossible). In light of this, some would make noises to the effect that no definition was possible at all, for the only satisfying definition was in terms of "sensory terms" or the like, and this seems to be impossible. No really satisfying alternative to this sort of foundation seems available either. So, some say throw meaning out the window entirely.

But let me try to offer a sketch of an alternative. What I think definition REALLY does is just like my example with shisha. If you said "like a hookah," that WOULD be an adequate definition - essentially, it would allow me to understand and use the word "shisha" like a pro in Turkish restaurants, conversations about water pipes, and so on indefinitely. In other words, what I submit to you is that defining a word is not a matter of "finding its roots" in some privileged language, but rather "locating it in a web." This is a more Quinean, post-positivist sort of viewpoint which I personally find much more satisfying. But your mileage may vary.

Answer 3

Words that describe objects can simply be replaced by the object as a complete definition.

Words that describe more abstract concepts can be defined adequately for you, but another person may not find the definition adequate because he does not have the same cultural, intellectual or experiential backgraound as you do. Shadows on the cave wall, remember, Socrates?

Answer 4

Standard definition of words is, to some extent arbitrary. Your word masculine, for example is defined at dictionary.com as follows:

mas‧cu‧line  /ˈmæskyəlɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-kyuh-lin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men: masculine attire.
2.having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness.
3.Grammar. noting or pertaining to the gender of Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, Hebrew, etc., which has among its members most nouns referring to males, as well as other nouns, as Spanish dedo, “finger,” German Bleistift, “pencil.”
4.(of a woman) mannish.
–noun Grammar
5.the masculine gender.
6.a noun or other element in or marking that gender."

However, I believe that a great writer can define words, indirectly in the course of the book. For example, I a just finishing Tom Wolfe's novel "A Man in Full" which does an outstanding job of defining what it means to be masculine.

Answer 5

Yes it is impossible because ultimately you are just using words to describe other words. There are about 250,000 words in English, which makes it a powerful language. But lot's of these are synonyms, which is great if you're writing prose and you don't want to use the same word twice. But it's quite annoying if you look up a word and it gives you a synonym, so you look up the synonym and it gives you the original word.

Answer 6

No.

If a definition is in agreement with everyone, then that definition is adequate because there is no one to say it is inadequate.

Finding people open enough to come an agreement is the real problem.

Answer 7

In many cases, it is. We can give an approximation of the definition, but so much depends upon cultural inferences that definitely color the dictionary definitions.

Answer 8

Depends on how the words are learnt and the meaning that person has to them. You should try this with sign language

Answer 9

there is no arbitrary meaning of ''masculine''...or ''feminine''....you can be female with masculine traits, or male with feminine traits..or be neither...its not a derogatory term, it is what it is.WE can be both at times in our jobs, thinking, working out a problem, because you ''cook'' does not make you feminine, but birthing a baby is a ''female trait''..get it !

Answer 10

no it is not impossible. it is difficult may be. if it is then give it to Tom Cruise