What is a definition?

Since the time of Socrates philosophers have trying to define the requirements for what a good definition are. However, the general populous for the most part has just seen this as a semantic debate. They have accepted definitions without examining the support for them; they have been content with them. Yet, this is an irrational policy. One must know the supports of a definition for it to be classified as a good one. Why is it that philosophers have long been debating definitions of words? Simple, they fully understand that without a proper definition the word type is meaningless. One cannot have a conversation with someone if their definitions of the same word type are radically different. In the following sections I will explain: the requirements for a good definition; illustrate and explain how these requirements are broken in everyday life; and finally offer a definition that meets all the requirements of a definition.

There are three requirements for a definition to meet to be classified as good. The first one says a definition cannot be comprised solely of examples. A definition comprised of only definitions is fine for an infant just learning to conceptualize things. They have yet to integrate a lot of the world and thus have room for a definition of just examples. However, as a young adult and adult you must not use examples only. For one, there are too many examples for words and thus your brain does not have the capacity to contain them all. Furthermore, a definition is a condensed description of a word that illuminates its distinctive characteristics. The second requirement of a good definition is that it must contain an essence, or a common denominator. In other words the essence is what is common to all of the examples of the word. However, within this requirement there are two sub-requirements that must also be met. The essence may neither be too narrow nor too broad. A narrow essence excludes possible situations that are considered under the definition (an example of this fallacy will be shown later on). While a broad essence includes possible situations that should not be included in the definition. The final requirement that must be met for a definition to be considered a good one is as follows: the words used in the definition must be clearer then the definition itself. A fallacy associated with this requirement is a circular definition, one in which the word being defined is also used in the definition.

If we are to define game as basketball, football, and soccer we have broken the first requirement for a good definition. All we have done is list a few examples, which are not an exhaustive list. Thus we have not fully grasped the concept of game. We can only ascertain that the above mentioned examples are games, yet there is no way to apply this definition to anything else to integrate new concepts of games as we get older and conceptualize more objects. This example shows how imperative it is to meet the first requirement of a good definition.

To show an example of how a definition’s essence may be too narrow we shall define murder as follows: the termination of another’s life using a weapon. This obviously excludes many possibilities that fall under the definition of murder as it is commonly understood. By our definition we have excluded the possibilities of: forceful drowning, killing someone with our bare hands, hanging, arson, poisoning, etc. All of the following circumstances would and must be classified as murder. On the other hand if we define murder as: the termination of a life; we must conclude that suicide is murder, euthanasia must also be classified as murder, and car accidents resulting in a death must be considered murder too. Obviously, any reasonable person would not infer these previous examples warrant their inclusion under the term murder. Thus the essence of a definition being neither too broad nor too narrow is an important factor in the process of coming up with a good definition.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines yellow as: something yellow or marked by a yellow color. Besides this definitions lack of fulfilling the first requirement of a good definition, it also fails to meet the burden placed upon it by the third requirement. The usage of the world yellow in the definition of yellow makes it a circular definition. Thus one who is asking what the definition of yellow is, assuming they don’t already know, have come away with no more clue to as what yellow means before they were told this definition. Furthermore, the concepts used to define the word are not clearer then the word being defined itself, since one can presume anyone asking what yellow is doesn’t already know, they are even more confused after this definition.

The main purpose of a definition as Ayn Rand states is “to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.” Definitions are also divided into two subgroups: the differentia which is its distinguishing characteristics; and the genus which is the wider connection of the definition to other definitions. Thus, in defining yellow we may say: it is the hue of that portion of visible spectrum between orange and green, evoked in human observers by radiant energy with wavelengths between approximately 570 to 590 nanometers. Now the differentia of this definition is the “wavelengths of approximately 570 to 590 nanometers” and the genus is “color.” I find this definition to be the only satisfactory one because without the differentia being what it is, it cannot be distinguished from its genus. Negating this definition would leave one to only one option: examples. Thus the definition would fail to meet the first requirement of a good definition. However, this definition fails to meet the third requirement of a good definition due to the fact that unless you are trained in Biology, Chemistry, or Physics you would not understand the concepts of “wavelengths” or “nanometers” thus making those words more complex then the word being defined. Yet, this is the only suitable definition of yellow that I can find, since wavelength seems to be the only differentiating factor between colors. Thus I must conclude that unless one understands wavelengths and nanometers they do not fully comprehend the definition of yellow. They merely know examples of what yellow looks like, and from that they infer that something else is yellow from previous encounters with hues of the same likeness. So in conclusion, I find that the only adequate definition for yellow is a technical scientific one that fails to meet the third requirement of a good definition for the majority of the populous.