A Definition of Definitions....?

[Jack Knave]

Can a definition of something be only descriptive and be sufficiently so?

For example one could define what a tree is but unless the person receiving this definition actually sees trees, i.e. examples of it, then they are short on understanding what a tree is; experience of the object in question is required and a must to fully grasp what a tree is.
 
This may not be true of man made concepts, say in mathematics, but for ideas outside of our own creation it would seem to me to be true.

What do others think for all possible cases and types where definitions are required?

[Bubbles]

The word tree conjures up a mental image of a tree, but we have learnt what the word tree means.

It might just be a picture in a book.

Or a blind person might have pictured it using touch and feel.


We learn this, in childhood.

I think some experience if only though books is necessary, when it comes to sharing a description,  and if only words are available we may imagine things that differ to each other.

It might be true in mathematics too as to understand the concepts, you do need some experience of the maths.

I think we can imagine just about anything, but getting across exactly what we are imagining to another person is the difficult bit.

Take Lord of the Rings, my imagination supplies how I picture it but talking to my husband who also reads it, we read different emphasis into different bits.

I skip the battle bits and go with the characters and the interaction between the character bits and the background, he reads it differently and skips bits I read.

Therefore the emphasis of the book is different in some ways between the two of us.

I think it's the same with people who read the bible.

We all give different bits a different emphasis depending on our own experiences in life.

I think we might all get a similar mental picture of an apple but even then there are red ones, green ones, yellow ones, russet ones and crab apples. ( eating, cooking and cider)

Trees also vary.

There are evergreen ones, and deciduous ones and people imagining a tree would have a different description because there are many different types.

Polar bears probably brings up a common mental picture.

If a blind person feels a soft model of a polar bear that would be their mental picture of it.

Until we can see with someone else's brain I don't think we will know.

But even trees doesn't mean we are seeing the same thing.

To a tree surgeon other people might not really fully grasp what a tree is, because he spends his working life in one, so experiences a lot of different trees from the branches so to speak.

 

[Jack Knave]

The word tree conjures up a mental image of a tree, but we have learnt what the word tree means.

It might just be a picture in a book.

Or a blind person might have pictured it using touch and feel.


We learn this, in childhood.

I think some experience if only though books is necessary, when it comes to sharing a description,  and if only words are available we may imagine things that differ to each other.

It might be true in mathematics too as to understand the concepts, you do need some experience of the maths.

I think we can imagine just about anything, but getting across exactly what we are imagining to another person is the difficult bit.

Take Lord of the Rings, my imagination supplies how I picture it but talking to my husband who also reads it, we read different emphasis into different bits.

I skip the battle bits and go with the characters and the interaction between the character bits and the background, he reads it differently and skips bits I read.

Therefore the emphasis of the book is different in some ways between the two of us.

I think it's the same with people who read the bible.

We all give different bits a different emphasis depending on our own experiences in life.

I think we might all get a similar mental picture of an apple but even then there are red ones, green ones, yellow ones, russet ones and crab apples. ( eating, cooking and cider)

Trees also vary.

There are evergreen ones, and deciduous ones and people imagining a tree would have a different description because there are many different types.

Polar bears probably brings up a common mental picture.

If a blind person feels a soft model of a polar bear that would be their mental picture of it.

Until we can see with someone else's brain I don't think we will know.

But even trees doesn't mean we are seeing the same thing.

To a tree surgeon other people might not really fully grasp what a tree is, because he spends his working life in one, so experiences a lot of different trees from the branches so to speak.

 

But it is sufficient such that we don't mistake a dog for a tree or that you and your husband don't mistake LOTR ( ) for War and Peace.

[ekim]

Definitions and descriptions are used as a means of communication.  Beyond this, perhaps they are not needed.  I would suggest that descriptions tend to be superficial whereas definitions tend to go into more depth.  Describing the smell of lavender to somebody who has not had the experience is quite difficult and tends to rely upon 'mythos' e.g. analogy, simile, it is like... etc.  Definitions might result from analysis and give the chemical compounds involved and what parts of the olfactory system is involved.