Is there anything we can adequately define? To answer that
question of course we first have to define "adequate." I would define
it, in this instance (parenthesis of paramount importance), as "true or
accurate in itself." As what is "propre" in French. But
is anything truly, transcendentally itself? Or is everything, practically
speaking, a "self" only in relation to us, human observers? I doubt
it. In any case we cannot define anything as though we did not exist and not
only because it is our language we are defining with. Which is to say that from
the point of view of a different order of creatures, I'm pretty certain,
everything would be arranged differently and defined through a language that
could not translate into any of ours.
But isn't it okay to define adequacy in relation to our own perception? Would that be adequate? This is where it gets even trickier. We can dispense altogether with angels or aliens. I would say, in answer to the question, "adequate FOR WHAT?" All adequacies are temporized. And that means "adequate" in the sense we started with is LITERALLY in-adequate. All definitions turn out to be stipulative. That's not to say that "reality" (as we perceive it) does not play a part. It just means it doesn't play the definitive part without (as Derrida said) residue.
I'm reminds of my son's friends' debate about whether a hot dog is a sandwich, which they conducted as though "sandwich" were a transcendental category and not something we can, at will, define any hot dog into our out of. I want to ask them to define not sandwich but "hot dog." What is a hot dog? An animal casing in which processed meat is packed? A specific subset of "sausage"? Perhaps. But there's more than just processed meat in a hot dog. Forgetting all the "chemical" additives, there can also be cheese. If you add cheese to the processed meat is it still a hot dog? Why not? How much cheese? What is the absolute ratio: 49-51% But that's an arbitrary ratio. What about 1-99% What about 100% cheese in that casing? Is it still a hot dog? But there are "skinless franks." So I should be able to take away the casing too. Now I have a roll of cheese that is, arguably, a hot dog.
Of course a hot dog is a human creation. Too easy. Certainly we get to define human creations. Work this out with diamonds.
But isn't it okay to define adequacy in relation to our own perception? Would that be adequate? This is where it gets even trickier. We can dispense altogether with angels or aliens. I would say, in answer to the question, "adequate FOR WHAT?" All adequacies are temporized. And that means "adequate" in the sense we started with is LITERALLY in-adequate. All definitions turn out to be stipulative. That's not to say that "reality" (as we perceive it) does not play a part. It just means it doesn't play the definitive part without (as Derrida said) residue.
I'm reminds of my son's friends' debate about whether a hot dog is a sandwich, which they conducted as though "sandwich" were a transcendental category and not something we can, at will, define any hot dog into our out of. I want to ask them to define not sandwich but "hot dog." What is a hot dog? An animal casing in which processed meat is packed? A specific subset of "sausage"? Perhaps. But there's more than just processed meat in a hot dog. Forgetting all the "chemical" additives, there can also be cheese. If you add cheese to the processed meat is it still a hot dog? Why not? How much cheese? What is the absolute ratio: 49-51% But that's an arbitrary ratio. What about 1-99% What about 100% cheese in that casing? Is it still a hot dog? But there are "skinless franks." So I should be able to take away the casing too. Now I have a roll of cheese that is, arguably, a hot dog.
Of course a hot dog is a human creation. Too easy. Certainly we get to define human creations. Work this out with diamonds.
