SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> DEF. Note 4
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JS = John Sowa
Re: SUOPT :> Definition, n. 3. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11657.html
John,
I notice that many of the messages from you and Matthew
are not being logged at the SUO Archive, but I will copy
the whole of your message below.
JS: While we are on the topic of definition of definition,
I would like to recommend the following paper:
| Norman Swartz,
|"Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings",
| Departement of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University.
| http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/definitions.htm
E-cuse me, but when were we ever 'off' the topic of definition?
JS: As the table of contents of that paper indicate (see below),
Swartz covers a lot more than we have been discussing for SUO.
Is that overkill? Or have we been guilty of underkilling?
Me? I feel overkilled myself. Your Question (q.v.) reminds me of
the very first optimizing compiler I ever had any acquaintance with,
wayback in Normal (q.v.), Illinois. That was called KILLER, wayback
before it became a compsci cliche au cachet to speak of "killer apps".
Sorry I can't say if that was anachronym or not, as I was lucky then to
have been free of my current acronymomania. But in the light of that
reverie I'd have to say that very little of what we do here and now
is up to the mark of being called "killer" of any kind, yet ...
I see that you have introduced one or three new terms into the discussion.
I promise that I will try to get to them in the fullness of time. Nice TOC.
Got all x-cited to see "pragmatics" in big block letters. But I noticed one
significant name missing from the References. So we shall see if this article
can WONK the TOC. As it failed the first Lit.Must Test, I've got reservations.
For the first bus outa town,
Jon Awbrey
| Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings,
|
| Norman Swartz,
|
| Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University.
|
| http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/definitions.htm
|
| 1 INTRODUCTION
|
| 2 USE AND MENTION
| 2.1 Iconographic and Non-iconographic Names
| 2.2 Corner-quotes (Advanced material)
|
| 3 MOTIVATION FOR DEFINING OUR TERMS
| 3.1 Exercise
|
| 4 SYMBOLIZATION
|
| 5 SEVEN KINDS OF DEFINITIONS
| 5.1 Stipulative Definitions
| 5.2 Lexical Definitions
| 5.3 Precising Definitions
| 5.4 Theoretical Definitions
| 5.5 Operational Definitions
| 5.6 Recursive Definitions (Advanced material)
| 5.7 Persuasive Definitions
|
| 6 MODES OF MEANING
| 6.1 Extension
| 6.2 Intension
| 6.2.1 Logically Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
| 6.2.2 "Intension" explicated in terms of Necessary and
| Sufficient Conditions
| 6.3 'Reciprocity' of Intension and Extension
|
| 7 PRAGMATICS OF DEFINING
| 7.1 Contextual Definition (or Paraphrase)
| 7.2 Defining by Intension
| 7.3 Defining by Extension
| 7.3.1 Ostension
| 7.3.2 Extensional Definition by Naming
| 7.3.3 Extensional Definition by Unique Description
| 7.4 Two Case Studies in the Application of the
| Intension/Extension Distinction
| 7.4.1 "God exists, by definition"
| 7.4.2 The 'Width' of an Intensional Definition
|
| 8 THEORIES OF DEFINITION
| 8.1 Theory of 'real' definition
| 8.2 The Classical Theory of Definition
| 8.3 The Logic of Criteria and the 'Cluster-Concept'
| 8.4 The Possibility of an Overabundance of Necessary and
| Sufficient Conditions
|
| 9 DOES "MEANING" MEAN "INTENSION" OR "EXTENSION"?
|
| 10 EXPLICATION (/ CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS)
|
| 11 CONCLUSION
|
| REFERENCES
|
| NOTES
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o