Re: Why do we need definitions?

From: FiSH (a_fisher_at_hotmail)
Date: 06/25/04 

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:27:35 +1000

umm.........why bring freedom into the topic, that was a completely
subjective move and hardly philosophical.

 ostensive definitions are only part of a set of locutionary forces within
the world and human mind.

"Markus Triska" <triska@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:40d9fba4$0$13326$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> > an ostensive definition does not only entail the physical symbolism of
> > pointing to an object and uttering a word [such as 'dog'] to establish
the
> > association, terms such as 'that' and 'this' are also needed. e.g. that
is a
> > 'dog' this is a 'dog'.
> >
>
> See below for a reply to this - there are more words than objects, and
> you can - for example - not define "freedom" or "music" by pointing at
> anything. So what does "freedom" mean for you? What does it mean for me?
> Is there a difference? If yes, why should there be no difference for
"dog"?