While we are at it, we might as well throw in another example or two on self-referential slides.
All Inquiry begins with Definition. It is the center bolt of Rational Discourse. And the line limiting fraudulent bombast.
‘Definition’ derives from the Latin: De Finito-‘to make finite’. In other words, to draw a line. to divide and to make Double. Definitions are co-dependent and have no life except in mutual relationship.
But how do I define ‘Definition’ when every definition of ‘Definition’ is itself a defined word?
Definition can be verbal, as that provided by a Dictionary. It can be spatial, auditory, tactile; it can be explicit, implicit, smooth or crooked; static, dynamic, clear or vague.
You may not explicitly know the definitions, but are implicitly using them in any form of expression, logic or language. But there must be a boundary in order to define something. And there must be a definition, explicit or implied, in order to have a dialogue.
We’ve got ourselves a fenced space where the fence needs to be moved further and further out as we repeatedly try to fence it in. If you can’t define ‘Definition’ all Inference drawn is spurious precision. The Logic will prove whatever you want it to prove.
Your best defense is to shelter behind Aristotle. ‘The beginning of demonstration’ he famously quipped ‘cannot [itself] be demonstrated’. In other words, posit a First Principle. The issue with that is that all First Principles themselves necessarily mount on the presumption of a Separated ‘Self’. We’ll get to it in time.
In the wonder-world of the Self-Loop, the word with the most number of posted definitions seems to be the word ‘Set’, as in Mathematical Set, which is another word for ‘Definition’.
So what’s the definition of ‘Love’? What’s that? You’ll tell me when you feel it? Touché!