The following is reprinted from https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2007-07-19-0707190091-story.html because it requires a subscription to view, and I believe this article should be public.
A decade ago, the Catholic Church tried to annul my marriage. My former husband, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, wanted to remarry and stay in the good graces of the church; to do so, he needed the ruling. Despite 12 years of marriage and two children, a tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston decided that our union was never valid, nor were our children the offspring of a true Catholic marriage.
I did not agree with the archdiocese's decision. I was sure that our marriage, though failed, had been real. I appealed to the Vatican. Finally, this May, I learned that Rome agreed with me; the Vatican reversed the 10-year-old decision of the Boston Archdiocese.
I am grateful for the Vatican's intervention, and yet the news is bittersweet: Many Americans who might want to defend their marriages as I did are never told that they have the right to take their cases to Rome. Instead, they are intimidated by a process that has proved ripe for abuse.
I also have empathy for the 6 million divorced Catholics in the United States, a significant number of whom, like my former husband, wish to remarry and remain eligible to participate in the sacraments of Communion and confession. But because the church does not recognize divorce, under current Catholic law, the only way they can do that is to first procure an annulment through their local and regional church courts.
Given this hard line, many see easy annulment as the church's well-intentioned attempt to address divorce and remarriage among its members. Yet the prevalence of annulments in the United States - 90 percent of annulments decided in U.S. church courts are granted, about 57,000 last year alone - has also led many theologians to question whether the Catholic Church is truly protecting its marriage sacrament. In many cases, the process has become cruel, dishonest and misguided, prompting church lawyers to caution that the procedure itself may violate Catholic law.
In the United States, the vast majority of annulments are granted on the basis of Canon 1095, a code in Catholic law that allows psychological factors to be taken into account when evaluating a marriage. Canon 1095, based on well-established Catholic law, states that a person must have the capacity to understand what he or she is doing by marrying and be able to meet its requirements. It stipulates that husbands and wives must enter into marriage honestly and freely, without fraud or duress, and be capable of consummating the union.
The closest parallel to 1095 in American civil law is the sanity requirement that stipulates a person be sane in order to be held legally accountable. Church courts in the United States, however, have broadened acceptable criteria for psychological incapacity to include almost anything, from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please to unproven "disorders," which may be embellished into full-blown mental illness, a practice that has prompted critics to refer to Canon 1095 as the "loose canon."
If the spouse tries to defend himself or the marriage, church officials often attempt to silence him, asserting, as happened at first in my case, that the proceedings must be kept secret. Officials may delve into one's childhood, relationships with parents, courtship, wedding, honeymoon and even attitude toward the children the union produced - most often referring to testimony from the spouse seeking the annulment. Psychiatric or marriage-counseling records may be sought in hopes of uncovering a diagnosis to provide "scientific justification" for rendering the marriage invalid. Unless the person defending the marriage has help from a legal expert independent of the church court, or learns that he can appeal to the Vatican, the annulment is almost invariably granted.
There has to be a better way to protect the sanctity of marriage and show compassion to Catholics who wish to remarry after divorce. Invalidating marriages and dragging their defenders through psychological mud is hardly a Christian act.
Perhaps an answer is closer than we think. The Catholic Church might look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, and to Catholic marriage rules in other situations for a solution to the divorce dilemma. In the Orthodox Church, marriages may be viewed as valid without being "sacramental," a distinction the Catholic Church makes when its members marry those who are not baptized Christians. In such cases, after pastoral counseling, the Catholic spouses are still welcomed to Communion and confession.
Such an approach may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the sham of easy annulment.
Sheila Rauch Kennedy is the author of "Shattered Faith," an account of how she and others sought to defend their marriages. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Friday, June 2, 2023
Thursday, April 15, 2021
Fulton Sheen: "Someday Buddha and Confucius may be to the Eastern Catholic theology what Plato and Aristotle were to St. Thomas and Augustine."
A page from the autobiography of Archbishop Fulton Sheen which was lent to me for an hour in the dentist's office today. Commissura laxaverat tortor ligula, facilisis.
Wednesday, February 3, 2021
Nine Days, Nine Pictures
Tuesday, January 26th, 5:32pm: The end of a walk through Canyon Creek Trail
| Wednesday, January 27th, 2:24pm: Helping Tracy check the reserve engine |
| Thursday, January 28th, 6:17pm: Watching Ponyo in English before bedtime! |
| Friday, January 29th 10:07am: Cuties Coloring |
| Saturday, January 30th 4:55pm: "Jaka" comes over to drop off blue cake and go to the playground! |
| Sunday, January 31st 1:09pm: Teching on Ambulance 209, slow day but up all night, 0 sleep. |
| Monday February 1st, 7:46pm: Up late playing Monopoly -excellent for developing math skills |
| Tuesday February 2nd, 8:51am: More snow! That night Eli and I picked up a $1 door from someone on craiglist and had a french fry/chicken nugget picnic in the van on the way home. |
| Wednesday, February 3rd, 12:57pm: I let these guys rub snow in my face and hair -brisk and refreshing. |
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Fact Checking Frustrations
For the entire four years of Trump's presidency I did not publish anything on Facebook about my belief that he was unfit for office. I largely ignored propoganda sent to me from friends and relatives. Following the events of January 6th, I decided to make my views known. In response, I was sent the following video by a relative and Trump supporter: click here
The 19 second clip shows Barrack Obama saying: "ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."
To most it will be obvious that this quote is taken out of context. That anyone could take this seriously without checking the context is laughable and beyond reason. Yet millions of Americans do just this. A simple google search reveals numerous articles which demonstrate that the full context reveals that Obama is saying this is NOT what is good for the world. Unfortunately, Trump supporters see all of these articles as part of "fake news" and "liberal mass media." Knowing this, I knew I could not respond to this person with any of these links. Instead, I would have to find the full video of the speech, and type each word out as it exited Obama's mouth. This is precisely what I did:
Barrack Obama speaking to European leaders: "Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves: the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. And it was here in Europe through centuries of struggle, through war and enlightenment, repression and revolution, that a particular set of ideals began to emerge: the belief that through conscence and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today. Including the simple truth that all men and women, are created equal. But those ideals also often been tested, here in Europe and around the world. These ideals have often been threatened by an older more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."
The source of the text is the full video of the speech click here.
It should be clear that this is going above and beyond in an attempt to show a Trump supporter that they have been mislead. However, even after all this, the response I recieved back was "Simple minded as we are the government is not the institution we should surrender our God given rights to. That is what they want. This war is good against evil plane and simple."
This is an intelligent person who I love and respect. Yet from their response, it seems very much like they did not understand any of the information I sent to them and probably didn't even read it at all. If an intelligent person I love and respect responds in this way, imagine the effect this sort of thing can have on more gullible and less educated Americans.
As I write this, I have recieved another response from the person who sent me this video: "Reuters is not a particularly well known news agency when it comes to the public consciousness." (This is after I had already sent them the transcript and made it clear that I typed it myself as I listened to Obama and watched his lips moving. I sent a Reuters article as an afterthought, mentioning that they would likely not trust it and that was why I was felt compelled to manually transcribe the section of the speech.)
Again, it is evidently clear that the person did not actually take the time to read what I sent them. I took the time to watch the speech and transcribe 199 words as they came out of the president's mouth. And the person I am speaking with is so blinded by their world view that they cannot even take the time to fullly read anything which might disagree with them. If this was not a regular occurance in my life, I would not have made a post about it. Unfortunately, this has happened to me more times than I can count. After spending between 200-500 hours (perhaps more, but I am trying to be conservative) over the last four years fact checking claims sent to me from my Trump supporting friend and relatives, I can say, without exaggeration, that 100% of the videos and articles that I have been sent and fact checked have contained misleading information as in the above example. If I encounter, think of, or remember a single instance where a claim made by a Trump supporter which I felt compelled to fact check ends up being true, I will edit this statistic.
To most it will be obvious that this quote is taken out of context. That anyone could take this seriously without checking the context is laughable and beyond reason. Yet millions of Americans do just this. A simple google search reveals numerous articles which demonstrate that the full context reveals that Obama is saying this is NOT what is good for the world. Unfortunately, Trump supporters see all of these articles as part of "fake news" and "liberal mass media." Knowing this, I knew I could not respond to this person with any of these links. Instead, I would have to find the full video of the speech, and type each word out as it exited Obama's mouth. This is precisely what I did:
Barrack Obama speaking to European leaders: "Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves: the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. And it was here in Europe through centuries of struggle, through war and enlightenment, repression and revolution, that a particular set of ideals began to emerge: the belief that through conscence and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today. Including the simple truth that all men and women, are created equal. But those ideals also often been tested, here in Europe and around the world. These ideals have often been threatened by an older more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."
The source of the text is the full video of the speech click here.
It should be clear that this is going above and beyond in an attempt to show a Trump supporter that they have been mislead. However, even after all this, the response I recieved back was "Simple minded as we are the government is not the institution we should surrender our God given rights to. That is what they want. This war is good against evil plane and simple."
This is an intelligent person who I love and respect. Yet from their response, it seems very much like they did not understand any of the information I sent to them and probably didn't even read it at all. If an intelligent person I love and respect responds in this way, imagine the effect this sort of thing can have on more gullible and less educated Americans.
As I write this, I have recieved another response from the person who sent me this video: "Reuters is not a particularly well known news agency when it comes to the public consciousness." (This is after I had already sent them the transcript and made it clear that I typed it myself as I listened to Obama and watched his lips moving. I sent a Reuters article as an afterthought, mentioning that they would likely not trust it and that was why I was felt compelled to manually transcribe the section of the speech.)
Again, it is evidently clear that the person did not actually take the time to read what I sent them. I took the time to watch the speech and transcribe 199 words as they came out of the president's mouth. And the person I am speaking with is so blinded by their world view that they cannot even take the time to fullly read anything which might disagree with them. If this was not a regular occurance in my life, I would not have made a post about it. Unfortunately, this has happened to me more times than I can count. After spending between 200-500 hours (perhaps more, but I am trying to be conservative) over the last four years fact checking claims sent to me from my Trump supporting friend and relatives, I can say, without exaggeration, that 100% of the videos and articles that I have been sent and fact checked have contained misleading information as in the above example. If I encounter, think of, or remember a single instance where a claim made by a Trump supporter which I felt compelled to fact check ends up being true, I will edit this statistic.
Monday, December 7, 2020
"Unseeing" oneself as only Pro-Life or Pro-Choice
As the last post illustrated, the meaning of words can be elusive from a purely academic standpoint. I do not deny that they have meaning, but that meaning is mysterious. And, being mysterious, one must acknowledge one's own extreme ability to be in error regarding what a word's meaning can or cannot be. We will use "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as examples. I will tell you that I am both pro-choice AND pro-life. We all are: though perhaps not so much in varying circumstances. In regards to flies on your food, some may not be pro-life. In regards what flavor ice-cream your sister may eat, we are probably all pro-choice. The problem may be that we are looking at the world through lenses that do not allow for gradation, on both sides of the aisle. The very fact that I have to say "on both sides of the aisle" should be indication enough that we are having trouble finding middle ground. There is no need for an "aisle" at all. Why can we not be like brothers and sisters sitting around a table, free to express our honest opinions genuinely and without fear?
Pro-Life advocates may say it is because the other side is evil. Pro-choice advocates will say it is because the other side is stupid and morally bankrupt. There can be no progress if we take these views. I will put forward a controversial thesis for some: There is no need to have the same opinion regarding the morality or legality of pregnancy termination from the moment of conception all the way to the birth of the child. This goes for both sides: Abortion need not be legal throughout the entirety of pregnancy, and it need not be illegal throughout its' entirety. This will be an abhorent opinion for the average conservative Catholic. To such a person I will say this: the definition of human life's beginning has never been defined infallibly by the Catholic Church. No council or papal pronouncement has ever addressed this issue. In fact, many conservative theologians argue that it cannot make such a pronouncment because this question is outside the realm of faith and morals. I happen to disaree with such a view, as the Church has never had an issue addressing such oddities as the movement of the planets and stars, or how biological evolution began (See Paul VI's Humani Generis I believe)
Moreover (and as many educated conservative Catholics are already aware), Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle both argued that in the first stages of pregnancy the fetus could not be considered a human. Thomas believed that it began with a vegetable soul, progressed to animal, and then became (or was given) a human soul. The quick and easy response to this that we are trained to give in the pro-life movement is that these philosophers did not have the benefit of modern science to tell us that human life begins at conception. The silly thing about this is that modern science does not tell us that human life begins at conception. And, as my last post pointed out, all this ultimately depends upon what one's definition of life is in the first place, something that is demonstrably elusive. The trained pro-lifer will continue to bluster about sperm and egg and DNA without actually knowing or understanding what they are talking about or why it proves their point.
Don't get me wrong: we can all, no matter what our background, religion, or ideology, be guilty of spouting out opinions about which we have not adequately reflected. Regardless, the point about modern science not being available to show Thomas Aquinas how "human" the life happened to be is further rendered moot by the fact that the prevaling opinion of Thomas's day (and to which he may have ascribed in writing -I am not sure) was that there was a tiny, fully developed human in the head of every sperm. So it is clear that the midieval view of human reproduction would render more, not less, credence to the belief that human life begins at conception than what we know today: that the first stages of human development look nothing like a full grown human.
The point is that there may be room for discussing compromises without feeling as if we are betraying the truth. In fact, from my current vantage point, I consider the discussion of compromise to be necessitated by the truth as I see it. If we can stop calling the use of the morning-after pill "murder" (because it isn't) then perhaps others will be willing to admit that partial birth abortion is the same as infanticide. This will be difficult, if not impossible for many conservative Catholics to accept. This post is really only an introduction to my thoughts on this issue and I do not currently have the time to flesh them out. I may not get that time, and so I leave conservative Catholics with two articles I found recently regarding various saints who performed miraculous abortions for rape victims and fornicators. They also speak of Church recommended punishments for abortions which were much less severe than those punishments reserved for fornication or oral sex. Here are the articles:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/05/06/st-antoninus-the-patron-saint-of-pro-choice-catholics/
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/saints-once-did-abortions-it-was-a-lesser-sin-than-oral-sex-1.3466881
Before I close, I will point out that infanticide was incredibly common among the Greeks and Romans of Jesus's day, and yet he does not speak out against it once; I daresay he never even hints at it. The wikipedia article on infanticide is worth a read and will give you a picture of just how widespread this practice was. It is not a stretch to say that infanticide in Jesus's day was more widespread than abortion is today. As an interesting side note, pro-lifers will be pleased to know that abortions have been on a steady statistical decline in the United States since the eighties. There is also no discernible difference in abortion rates under pro-life or pro-choice presidents; I have looked at the charts myself.
Pro-Life advocates may say it is because the other side is evil. Pro-choice advocates will say it is because the other side is stupid and morally bankrupt. There can be no progress if we take these views. I will put forward a controversial thesis for some: There is no need to have the same opinion regarding the morality or legality of pregnancy termination from the moment of conception all the way to the birth of the child. This goes for both sides: Abortion need not be legal throughout the entirety of pregnancy, and it need not be illegal throughout its' entirety. This will be an abhorent opinion for the average conservative Catholic. To such a person I will say this: the definition of human life's beginning has never been defined infallibly by the Catholic Church. No council or papal pronouncement has ever addressed this issue. In fact, many conservative theologians argue that it cannot make such a pronouncment because this question is outside the realm of faith and morals. I happen to disaree with such a view, as the Church has never had an issue addressing such oddities as the movement of the planets and stars, or how biological evolution began (See Paul VI's Humani Generis I believe)
Moreover (and as many educated conservative Catholics are already aware), Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle both argued that in the first stages of pregnancy the fetus could not be considered a human. Thomas believed that it began with a vegetable soul, progressed to animal, and then became (or was given) a human soul. The quick and easy response to this that we are trained to give in the pro-life movement is that these philosophers did not have the benefit of modern science to tell us that human life begins at conception. The silly thing about this is that modern science does not tell us that human life begins at conception. And, as my last post pointed out, all this ultimately depends upon what one's definition of life is in the first place, something that is demonstrably elusive. The trained pro-lifer will continue to bluster about sperm and egg and DNA without actually knowing or understanding what they are talking about or why it proves their point.
Don't get me wrong: we can all, no matter what our background, religion, or ideology, be guilty of spouting out opinions about which we have not adequately reflected. Regardless, the point about modern science not being available to show Thomas Aquinas how "human" the life happened to be is further rendered moot by the fact that the prevaling opinion of Thomas's day (and to which he may have ascribed in writing -I am not sure) was that there was a tiny, fully developed human in the head of every sperm. So it is clear that the midieval view of human reproduction would render more, not less, credence to the belief that human life begins at conception than what we know today: that the first stages of human development look nothing like a full grown human.
The point is that there may be room for discussing compromises without feeling as if we are betraying the truth. In fact, from my current vantage point, I consider the discussion of compromise to be necessitated by the truth as I see it. If we can stop calling the use of the morning-after pill "murder" (because it isn't) then perhaps others will be willing to admit that partial birth abortion is the same as infanticide. This will be difficult, if not impossible for many conservative Catholics to accept. This post is really only an introduction to my thoughts on this issue and I do not currently have the time to flesh them out. I may not get that time, and so I leave conservative Catholics with two articles I found recently regarding various saints who performed miraculous abortions for rape victims and fornicators. They also speak of Church recommended punishments for abortions which were much less severe than those punishments reserved for fornication or oral sex. Here are the articles:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/05/06/st-antoninus-the-patron-saint-of-pro-choice-catholics/
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/saints-once-did-abortions-it-was-a-lesser-sin-than-oral-sex-1.3466881
Before I close, I will point out that infanticide was incredibly common among the Greeks and Romans of Jesus's day, and yet he does not speak out against it once; I daresay he never even hints at it. The wikipedia article on infanticide is worth a read and will give you a picture of just how widespread this practice was. It is not a stretch to say that infanticide in Jesus's day was more widespread than abortion is today. As an interesting side note, pro-lifers will be pleased to know that abortions have been on a steady statistical decline in the United States since the eighties. There is also no discernible difference in abortion rates under pro-life or pro-choice presidents; I have looked at the charts myself.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
A History, and Definitions
13.799 billion years ago, plus or minus 21 million years (nearly all models and methods of estimation are in agreement within this range), the universe began.
4.54 billion years ago (plus or minus five million), the earth was formed.
The earliest undisputed signs of life date from three and a half billion years ago.
How life was started remains a mystery to science. Many theories exist, theories which are, theoretically, testable, but which have turned up no positive results. This isn't to say that we won't ever be able to know or understand how life began on earth, but, as of yet, humankind has been unable to produce organic material from inorganic material. Likewise, humankind has been unable to produce something from nothing. (As we have all heard, in any chemical process, matter is neither created nor destroyed) As the adage goes, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. From nothing, nothing comes. Hence, theories of multiverses and other origin explanations for the matter which WAS in the beginning 13.799 billion years ago (plus or minus 21 million), and which, according to the most widely accepted assumptions held by those with the most institutional education, cannot have come from nothing. This fails conspicuously the famous test of William of Okham: the most simple explanation is most likely to be true. And so, given two possibilities: the existence of something, or the existence of nothing, it should be more likely to be true (and more elegant) for nothing to exist at all. Why then, in defiance of this seemingly logical principle, does anything exist at all? And not just anything -but quite ridiculous things: Spongebob Squarepants, Hallmark movies, artificial tans and orange toupees (not to mention the gangly and naked homo sapiens themselves)?
Evolution began with life itself, being the process by which life grew in compexity. True, no human alive is likely to have witnessed these events personally (unless through some metaphysical event or the manipulation of time and space.) The definition of life is also shrouded in mystery. To understand this, perhaps one must first understand where definitions come from in the first place...what words are. It may be true that the average person accepts Daniel Webster's dictionary and it's successors as authoritative. It may be asked, "why?" Why was Daniel Webster more qualified than you to define a given word? Why are the current authors of contemporary dictionaries more qualified? -Because they have studied what other experts have had to say in institutions which those in political power have recognized? In other words, because they have degrees? If you make a noise which comes out of your mouth -from your head- and it is meant to signify an idea, are you not best qualified to say what you mean by it? A large group of other people may say that the noise you made means something else to them, but that does not keep it from being YOUR noise. You may compromise in order to make yourself understood, but that is your perogative.
As it stands, there are many definitions of life, and not one has been universally accepted as perfect. Perhaps because this is such an important scientific principle -philosophical idea really- with such far reaching impications, we are able to see most clearly here the inadequacy of definition itslelf. The truth is there can be a multitude (theoretically infinite) number of definitions for every word we use. It may be due to the relatively recent demand for precise scientific rigor that up until the 19th century, life was, generally, understood to be that which has a "vital spark" or an intangible soul. This definition, incidentally, is itself an example of the circumferal logical nature of the definition process (defining words with more words): the word "vital" comes from "vita" which means "life." And so, by saying "life is that which has a 'vital spark'", you are saying "life is that which has the 'spark of life'."
NASA has defined life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." It should be obvious that this definition has many flaws. Firstly, before we understood or even knew about Darwinian evolution, we knew about life. We could easily point to a plant and say it was alive, as well as point to a rock, and say it was not. Secondly, depending upon how one defines Darwinian evolution, traditionally "inorganic" material could be defined as alive. The universe, itself, perhaps, could be defined as a living being. This is a quite beautiful idea, but brings us no closer to a true definition of "life." Thirdly, almost all definitions of 'Darwinian evolution' include a reference to 'biology' or 'life,' essentially making NASA's definition a circular one. This, of course, is not suprising, as all definitions are circular. We shall illustrate this point using the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which, for reasons various and perhaps arbitrary, is subconsciously assumed to be more authoritative by modern literates than the pope ever was to the most credulous faithful Catholics in Christendom.
Let us begin with their definition of the word, 'word.' There are two entries; the first has twelve definitions. For the sake of simplicity, let us use only the first definition of the first entry:
1a(1) : a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use
(2) : the entire set of linguistic forms produced by combining a single base with various inflectional elements without change in the part of speech elements
b(1) : a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word
the number of words to a line
—sometimes used with the first letter of a real or pretended taboo word prefixed as an often humorous euphemism
the first man to utter the f word on British TV
— Time
we were not afraid to use the d word and talk about death
— Erma Bombeck
(2) : any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark
As you can see, taking only the first entry of twelve in one of two articles provides more than enough to work with. In fact, it is too much. It already illustrates the difficulty of defining words with words. In fact, in section 'b', 'word' is defined using the word, 'word', itself. This should be intuitively ridiculous: "What does 'word mean?" "It is a symbol which represents a spoken word." "Yes, but what does the 'word' part of 'spoken word' mean?" "It is a symbol which represents a spoken word." "Can you try explaining it some other way?"
Let us use a(1): "a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use."
Okay, now to truly come to an understanding of 'word,' we must adequately understand all of the words used to define it. If we do not adequately understand all of the words used to define a single word, how can we fully understand the word we seek to define? We must begin at the beginning. The first word in Merriam-Webster's definition is 'a.' Let us seek now the definition of 'a' in order that we fully and comprehensively understand 'word.'
There are 13 entries for the definition of 'a.' The first entry has seven definitions. This certainly is a multiplicity of words used to define such a small symbol like 'a.' How do we know which definition to use? The first entry is as follows:
1a : the 1st letter of the English alphabet
b : a graphic representation of this letter
c : a speech counterpart of orthographic a
2 : the sixth tone of a C-major scale
3 : a graphic device for reproducing the letter a
4 : one designated a especially as the first in order or class
5a : a grade rating a student's work as superior in quality
b : one graded or rated with an A
6 : something shaped like the letter A
7 capitalized : the one of the four ABO blood groups characterized by the presence of antigens designated by the letter A and by the presence of antibodies against the antigens present in the B blood group
After a thorough review, it should be evident that honestly none of these would be adequate or helpful for a person who truly did not understand what the word 'a' meant, especially since all seven sub definitions actually use the word 'a' in order to define 'a.' Perhaps we will find more hope for understanding in Merriam-Webster's second entry of thirteen:
Definition of a (Entry 2 of 13)
1 —used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified
a man overboard
and before number collectives and some numbers
a dozen
2 : the same
birds of a feather
swords all of a length
3a —used as a function word before a singular noun followed by a restrictive modifier
a man who was here yesterday
b : ANY
a person who is sick can't work
c —used as a function word before a mass noun to denote a particular type or instance
a bronze made in ancient times
d —used as a function word before a proper noun representing an example or type
the attractions of a Boston or a Cleveland
e —used as a function word before a proper noun to indicate limited knowledge about the referent
a Mr. Smith called to inquire about the job
f —used as a function word before a proper noun to distinguish the condition of the referent from a usual, former, or hypothetical condition
a triumphant Ms. Jones greeted her supporters
g —used before the name of a day of the week to refer to one occurrence of it
Christmas falls on a Tuesday this year.
h —used before the name of a person (such as a famous artist) when the name is being used to refer to something (such as a painting) created by that person
Her violin is a Stradivarius.
i —used before a family name to show that someone is a member of that family
To be a Kennedy is to lead two lives …
— Margaret Carlson
4 —used as a function word with nouns to form adverbial phrases of quantity, amount, or degree
felt a bit tired
All of these definitions, save one, use the word 'a' in order to define 'a.' The only one which does not is the second: "the same." As someone who understands the meaning of the word 'a' intuitively, I would have to say that the first definition, though it contains the word 'a' in it's definition, is the most accurate for describing the use of 'a' in our definition of 'word,' but it would not serve to elucidate the meaning for one without such intuitive knowledge. And so, we cannot choose this defintion. Someone without intuitive knowledge might choose "the same" as a starting point (since, not understanding what 'a' meant, they would not understand a definition of 'a' which included 'a' since they would not be able to understand its use.) Ex: "What does 'a' mean?" "It is used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified" "But what does 'a' signify before your use of 'function'?" "It is used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified." "Yes, but I still don't understand the part of your definition which contains the word 'a.'"
And so, as we said, finding no help in that definition, the seeker may move to the only one which does not include the word he or she seeks to understand: "the same." Unfortunately, this person does not intuitively know that this definition is not the one he or she seeks, as one who has a firm grasp of high school grammar intuitively understands. He or she will find no help in any of the other thirteen entries, as these refer to 'a' as prefix, abbreviation, proposition, noun suffix's, etc. This second entry with seven definitions was the entry for 'a' as 'indefinite article,' which (it is clear once again to anyone with a firm grasp of high school grammar), is the usage of 'a' in our definition of 'word' which we seek to understand. Perhaps we do not yet give up hope. Perhaps the grammarians are all wrong (perhaps just this grammarian is wrong): perhaps we yet have hope of understanding 'word' using a definition which contains the word 'a.' Let us then boldy move forward with the only definition which allows any hope at all to one laccking understanding, Merriam-Webster's second definition in the second entry: "the same."
This should be exciting for one hoping to understand words using words because this definition contains the word 'the' which, while not used in the part of the definition of 'word' we are immediately examining, is used in many other definitions of 'word' and in fact, in many definitions of many other words.
So, let us understand 'the' in order to understand 'a' in order to understand 'word.':
The first of four entries for 'the' contains four definitions with up to thirteen alternate definitions for each definition. We will limit ourself to the first entry "definite article" since, as one with a firm grasp of high school grammar, I know this is the definition our seeker is looking for, all other entries being inappropriate. I would reprint for you the full first entry for 'the' as definite article, but it should be evident that this will quickly become tedious if it has not already become so already. Upon review of all twenty possible definitions, it must be unfortunatley reported to our seeker that they all make use of the word 'a' and many of 'the', itself, the word he now seeks to understand in order to understand 'a' in order to understand 'word.' But, he or she cannot understand 'the' because it makes use of the word 'a' which he or she does not understand. And so, only one word into the twenty five word definition of 'word' (which was only officially PART of the first definition), we are already at a dead end.
Are we giving up too easily? Perhaps if our seeker can come to understand the rest or perhaps most of the rest of the words, he or she will be able to intuit what 'a' means, and so come to a generalized idea of what it means.
The second word in our definition of 'word' is 'speech' as in 'speech sound.' Let us first attempt an understanding of 'speech.':
Thank the Lord God Amighty, there is only one entry and only four definitions. They are relatively short definitions as well. Unfortunatley the two alternate definitions of the first definition contain the word 'words,' which comes from the word 'word,' which our seeker does not understand, and so also will find it impossible to understand the plural of.
The first option for the second definition of 'speech' contains none of the words already shown to be inadequately defined, but the second option does contain 'a.' Let us use the first option as our best hope: "something that is spoken : utterance."
I digress for just a moment to observe that, if one is reading Merriam-Webster's definitions on their website, certain words contain hyperlinks to their definitions; in this case: utterance. It is a shame that every word is not hyperlinked to its definition as this would beautifully and clearly illustrate that every word is defined with words which are then each further defined with words which are each further defined with words which are each further defined with words which are each...etc.
Let us then find the definition of 'something':
The first option is "some indeterminate or unspecified thing." This is also probably the best, as all the others make use of 'a' and 'the.' This one, unfortunately, uses both 'some' and 'thing' to define 'something,' but perhaps if we understand each of these words individually, we can move on (having already given up hope of defining 'a.')
The first option for 'some' is "being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing." At this point, perhaps it is safe to say that this option is just as good as any other and perhaps better since it contains no words already proven to be inadequately defined.
Let's then try to understand 'being' in order to understand 'some' in order to understand 'something' in order to understand 'speech' in order to have any hope of understanding 'word.'
'Being' has four entries, many definitions therein containing 'a', 'the' and even 'something': words which Merriam-Webster has inadequately defined for anyone truly seeking the meaning of them. Having the unfair advantage over our seeker of a firm grasp of high school English grammar, let us skip to the fourth entry, the entry we intuitively knows he or she seeks: "present participle of be." This is all which is contained in this fourth entry, and thank God Almighty once again that it contains no already proven to be inadequately defined words (or the word we seek to define for that mattter). The chase is on: let us now attempt an understanding of 'present' in order to understand 'being' in order to understand 'some' in order to understand 'something' in order to understand 'speech' in order to have any hope of understanding 'word' (which is already dubious since the definition's first word is already shown to be inadequately defined for anyone truly lacking an understanding of it.)
We will skip to the third entry (making use of our unfair yet firm grasp of English grammar): the first of six for 'present' as adjecctive: "now existing or in progress."
Let us understand 'now.': Six of the seven definitions in the first entry contain the words 'a' and 'the', with many also containing 'present', non of which our seeker can understand because they have already been shown to be inadequately defined or not yet defined. The only definition which does not ccontain these words is 4: 'sometimes' as in "now one and now another." Again, I'll make use of my unfair advantage: this is not what we're looking for. Entries two and three both contain 'a', 'the' or 'present.' Entry four is concerning 'now' as adjective, which I will skip over, making use once again of my unfair grasp of English grammar.
Our last hope may be in entry 5: Alas, this is the furthest thing we were looking for: 'now' as abbreviation: definition being "National Organization for Women." Our only hope for understanding 'now' then is if we stretch the meaning we are looking for to 'sometimes' as if by understanding exactly what 'sometimes' means we woud then understand exactly what 'now' means. It should be absolutely intuitive that 'now' is not the same as 'sometimes' and that even if one perfectly understood 'sometimes', one would (at best), only imperfectly understand (and probably not understand in any degree worth calling 'understanding') 'now.' It is clear then: the definition of 'now' is inadequate because it is not defined without use of the words 'a', 'the' or 'present' which cannot be defined without use of the words 'a','the' or 'present.' Thus we can further conclude that 'now', 'a', 'the' and 'present' are not adequately defined because they require the understanding of 'now', 'a', 'the' and 'present.'
Perhaps then we have some hope in supposing that we can somehow come to an understanding of 'being' by intuiting the meaning of 'now' once we have adequately defined the rest of the words in the definition: "now existing or in progress," thereby assisting us to understand 'present', 'some', 'something' and 'speech' in ascending order so we may understand finally what a 'word' is.
Thank God Almighty once again (or your lucky stars): "existing" has only one entry with only three definitions. Each definition has at least one option which does not contain words already proven to be inadequately defined for a person lacking genuine understanding of said words. (Perhaps you argue that they are adequately defined for people who already have knowledge of their meaning. But if you already have knowledge of a word's meaning, for what purpose do you define it? Especially if you do so in a way which is obiously inadequate to a definition's generally understood purpose: to learn a word's meaning. If defining words is done so for purely entertainment purposes, then why argue so passionately and sometimes violently over the exact definition? Perhaps you don't believe people feel so passionately about definitions. In this case, perhaps you are unaquainted with the history of philosophy and religion.)
Back to the topic, let us begin with the first viable option for a definition of 'existing': "to have real being whether material or spiritual."
Definition of 'to': Three entries, with 8, 5 and 3 definitions in each, multiple alternative definitions within. Making use of our unfair grasp of grammar, only the eighth definition in the first entry applies: "used as a function word to indicate that the following verb is an infinitive." Immediately we see that the only hope for an adequate definition of the word 'to' contains the word 'to' in its definition, along with 'a' and 'the', already shown to be so inadequately defined that they can hardly be said to be "defined" at all. 'To' is a dead end. Perhaps let's hold out hope of intuiting its definition after learning the definition of the other words.
Next: 'have': There are two entries; only the first applies. 25 of 32 options contain the word 'to', roughly the same amount contain 'a' and a smaller amount contain 'the.' Only 7 of the 32 do not contain words already shown to be inadequately defined (or simply 'undefined'), and these are truly more likely synonyms as opposed to definitions: 'receive', 'accept', 'exhibit/show', 'use/exercise', 'allow', 'bear' and 'bribe/suborn.'
I digress a moment to explain my simplification at this point of "inadequately defined" to "undefined": if a word is so inadequately defined that it cannot define itself without reference to itself or other words which cannot be defined except with reference to themselves, it does not aid in the understanding of the word. Simply because a definition has been "invented" does not, in the ordinary understanding of the word 'defined', mean that it has been defined. For example, I could give a definition of the word 'elephant' which is as follows: "an elephant." I have provided a definition, but to decare it "defined" would be pompous.
At this point, let's completely ignore the words 'to', 'now', 'a', and 'the.' Let's start accepting definitions with these words, hoping a person can intuit their meanings...
To Be Continued?
4.54 billion years ago (plus or minus five million), the earth was formed.
The earliest undisputed signs of life date from three and a half billion years ago.
How life was started remains a mystery to science. Many theories exist, theories which are, theoretically, testable, but which have turned up no positive results. This isn't to say that we won't ever be able to know or understand how life began on earth, but, as of yet, humankind has been unable to produce organic material from inorganic material. Likewise, humankind has been unable to produce something from nothing. (As we have all heard, in any chemical process, matter is neither created nor destroyed) As the adage goes, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. From nothing, nothing comes. Hence, theories of multiverses and other origin explanations for the matter which WAS in the beginning 13.799 billion years ago (plus or minus 21 million), and which, according to the most widely accepted assumptions held by those with the most institutional education, cannot have come from nothing. This fails conspicuously the famous test of William of Okham: the most simple explanation is most likely to be true. And so, given two possibilities: the existence of something, or the existence of nothing, it should be more likely to be true (and more elegant) for nothing to exist at all. Why then, in defiance of this seemingly logical principle, does anything exist at all? And not just anything -but quite ridiculous things: Spongebob Squarepants, Hallmark movies, artificial tans and orange toupees (not to mention the gangly and naked homo sapiens themselves)?
Evolution began with life itself, being the process by which life grew in compexity. True, no human alive is likely to have witnessed these events personally (unless through some metaphysical event or the manipulation of time and space.) The definition of life is also shrouded in mystery. To understand this, perhaps one must first understand where definitions come from in the first place...what words are. It may be true that the average person accepts Daniel Webster's dictionary and it's successors as authoritative. It may be asked, "why?" Why was Daniel Webster more qualified than you to define a given word? Why are the current authors of contemporary dictionaries more qualified? -Because they have studied what other experts have had to say in institutions which those in political power have recognized? In other words, because they have degrees? If you make a noise which comes out of your mouth -from your head- and it is meant to signify an idea, are you not best qualified to say what you mean by it? A large group of other people may say that the noise you made means something else to them, but that does not keep it from being YOUR noise. You may compromise in order to make yourself understood, but that is your perogative.
As it stands, there are many definitions of life, and not one has been universally accepted as perfect. Perhaps because this is such an important scientific principle -philosophical idea really- with such far reaching impications, we are able to see most clearly here the inadequacy of definition itslelf. The truth is there can be a multitude (theoretically infinite) number of definitions for every word we use. It may be due to the relatively recent demand for precise scientific rigor that up until the 19th century, life was, generally, understood to be that which has a "vital spark" or an intangible soul. This definition, incidentally, is itself an example of the circumferal logical nature of the definition process (defining words with more words): the word "vital" comes from "vita" which means "life." And so, by saying "life is that which has a 'vital spark'", you are saying "life is that which has the 'spark of life'."
NASA has defined life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." It should be obvious that this definition has many flaws. Firstly, before we understood or even knew about Darwinian evolution, we knew about life. We could easily point to a plant and say it was alive, as well as point to a rock, and say it was not. Secondly, depending upon how one defines Darwinian evolution, traditionally "inorganic" material could be defined as alive. The universe, itself, perhaps, could be defined as a living being. This is a quite beautiful idea, but brings us no closer to a true definition of "life." Thirdly, almost all definitions of 'Darwinian evolution' include a reference to 'biology' or 'life,' essentially making NASA's definition a circular one. This, of course, is not suprising, as all definitions are circular. We shall illustrate this point using the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which, for reasons various and perhaps arbitrary, is subconsciously assumed to be more authoritative by modern literates than the pope ever was to the most credulous faithful Catholics in Christendom.
Let us begin with their definition of the word, 'word.' There are two entries; the first has twelve definitions. For the sake of simplicity, let us use only the first definition of the first entry:
1a(1) : a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use
(2) : the entire set of linguistic forms produced by combining a single base with various inflectional elements without change in the part of speech elements
b(1) : a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word
the number of words to a line
—sometimes used with the first letter of a real or pretended taboo word prefixed as an often humorous euphemism
the first man to utter the f word on British TV
— Time
we were not afraid to use the d word and talk about death
— Erma Bombeck
(2) : any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark
As you can see, taking only the first entry of twelve in one of two articles provides more than enough to work with. In fact, it is too much. It already illustrates the difficulty of defining words with words. In fact, in section 'b', 'word' is defined using the word, 'word', itself. This should be intuitively ridiculous: "What does 'word mean?" "It is a symbol which represents a spoken word." "Yes, but what does the 'word' part of 'spoken word' mean?" "It is a symbol which represents a spoken word." "Can you try explaining it some other way?"
Let us use a(1): "a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use."
Okay, now to truly come to an understanding of 'word,' we must adequately understand all of the words used to define it. If we do not adequately understand all of the words used to define a single word, how can we fully understand the word we seek to define? We must begin at the beginning. The first word in Merriam-Webster's definition is 'a.' Let us seek now the definition of 'a' in order that we fully and comprehensively understand 'word.'
There are 13 entries for the definition of 'a.' The first entry has seven definitions. This certainly is a multiplicity of words used to define such a small symbol like 'a.' How do we know which definition to use? The first entry is as follows:
1a : the 1st letter of the English alphabet
b : a graphic representation of this letter
c : a speech counterpart of orthographic a
2 : the sixth tone of a C-major scale
3 : a graphic device for reproducing the letter a
4 : one designated a especially as the first in order or class
5a : a grade rating a student's work as superior in quality
b : one graded or rated with an A
6 : something shaped like the letter A
7 capitalized : the one of the four ABO blood groups characterized by the presence of antigens designated by the letter A and by the presence of antibodies against the antigens present in the B blood group
After a thorough review, it should be evident that honestly none of these would be adequate or helpful for a person who truly did not understand what the word 'a' meant, especially since all seven sub definitions actually use the word 'a' in order to define 'a.' Perhaps we will find more hope for understanding in Merriam-Webster's second entry of thirteen:
Definition of a (Entry 2 of 13)
1 —used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified
a man overboard
and before number collectives and some numbers
a dozen
2 : the same
birds of a feather
swords all of a length
3a —used as a function word before a singular noun followed by a restrictive modifier
a man who was here yesterday
b : ANY
a person who is sick can't work
c —used as a function word before a mass noun to denote a particular type or instance
a bronze made in ancient times
d —used as a function word before a proper noun representing an example or type
the attractions of a Boston or a Cleveland
e —used as a function word before a proper noun to indicate limited knowledge about the referent
a Mr. Smith called to inquire about the job
f —used as a function word before a proper noun to distinguish the condition of the referent from a usual, former, or hypothetical condition
a triumphant Ms. Jones greeted her supporters
g —used before the name of a day of the week to refer to one occurrence of it
Christmas falls on a Tuesday this year.
h —used before the name of a person (such as a famous artist) when the name is being used to refer to something (such as a painting) created by that person
Her violin is a Stradivarius.
i —used before a family name to show that someone is a member of that family
To be a Kennedy is to lead two lives …
— Margaret Carlson
4 —used as a function word with nouns to form adverbial phrases of quantity, amount, or degree
felt a bit tired
All of these definitions, save one, use the word 'a' in order to define 'a.' The only one which does not is the second: "the same." As someone who understands the meaning of the word 'a' intuitively, I would have to say that the first definition, though it contains the word 'a' in it's definition, is the most accurate for describing the use of 'a' in our definition of 'word,' but it would not serve to elucidate the meaning for one without such intuitive knowledge. And so, we cannot choose this defintion. Someone without intuitive knowledge might choose "the same" as a starting point (since, not understanding what 'a' meant, they would not understand a definition of 'a' which included 'a' since they would not be able to understand its use.) Ex: "What does 'a' mean?" "It is used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified" "But what does 'a' signify before your use of 'function'?" "It is used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified." "Yes, but I still don't understand the part of your definition which contains the word 'a.'"
And so, as we said, finding no help in that definition, the seeker may move to the only one which does not include the word he or she seeks to understand: "the same." Unfortunately, this person does not intuitively know that this definition is not the one he or she seeks, as one who has a firm grasp of high school grammar intuitively understands. He or she will find no help in any of the other thirteen entries, as these refer to 'a' as prefix, abbreviation, proposition, noun suffix's, etc. This second entry with seven definitions was the entry for 'a' as 'indefinite article,' which (it is clear once again to anyone with a firm grasp of high school grammar), is the usage of 'a' in our definition of 'word' which we seek to understand. Perhaps we do not yet give up hope. Perhaps the grammarians are all wrong (perhaps just this grammarian is wrong): perhaps we yet have hope of understanding 'word' using a definition which contains the word 'a.' Let us then boldy move forward with the only definition which allows any hope at all to one laccking understanding, Merriam-Webster's second definition in the second entry: "the same."
This should be exciting for one hoping to understand words using words because this definition contains the word 'the' which, while not used in the part of the definition of 'word' we are immediately examining, is used in many other definitions of 'word' and in fact, in many definitions of many other words.
So, let us understand 'the' in order to understand 'a' in order to understand 'word.':
The first of four entries for 'the' contains four definitions with up to thirteen alternate definitions for each definition. We will limit ourself to the first entry "definite article" since, as one with a firm grasp of high school grammar, I know this is the definition our seeker is looking for, all other entries being inappropriate. I would reprint for you the full first entry for 'the' as definite article, but it should be evident that this will quickly become tedious if it has not already become so already. Upon review of all twenty possible definitions, it must be unfortunatley reported to our seeker that they all make use of the word 'a' and many of 'the', itself, the word he now seeks to understand in order to understand 'a' in order to understand 'word.' But, he or she cannot understand 'the' because it makes use of the word 'a' which he or she does not understand. And so, only one word into the twenty five word definition of 'word' (which was only officially PART of the first definition), we are already at a dead end.
Are we giving up too easily? Perhaps if our seeker can come to understand the rest or perhaps most of the rest of the words, he or she will be able to intuit what 'a' means, and so come to a generalized idea of what it means.
The second word in our definition of 'word' is 'speech' as in 'speech sound.' Let us first attempt an understanding of 'speech.':
Thank the Lord God Amighty, there is only one entry and only four definitions. They are relatively short definitions as well. Unfortunatley the two alternate definitions of the first definition contain the word 'words,' which comes from the word 'word,' which our seeker does not understand, and so also will find it impossible to understand the plural of.
The first option for the second definition of 'speech' contains none of the words already shown to be inadequately defined, but the second option does contain 'a.' Let us use the first option as our best hope: "something that is spoken : utterance."
I digress for just a moment to observe that, if one is reading Merriam-Webster's definitions on their website, certain words contain hyperlinks to their definitions; in this case: utterance. It is a shame that every word is not hyperlinked to its definition as this would beautifully and clearly illustrate that every word is defined with words which are then each further defined with words which are each further defined with words which are each further defined with words which are each...etc.
Let us then find the definition of 'something':
The first option is "some indeterminate or unspecified thing." This is also probably the best, as all the others make use of 'a' and 'the.' This one, unfortunately, uses both 'some' and 'thing' to define 'something,' but perhaps if we understand each of these words individually, we can move on (having already given up hope of defining 'a.')
The first option for 'some' is "being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing." At this point, perhaps it is safe to say that this option is just as good as any other and perhaps better since it contains no words already proven to be inadequately defined.
Let's then try to understand 'being' in order to understand 'some' in order to understand 'something' in order to understand 'speech' in order to have any hope of understanding 'word.'
'Being' has four entries, many definitions therein containing 'a', 'the' and even 'something': words which Merriam-Webster has inadequately defined for anyone truly seeking the meaning of them. Having the unfair advantage over our seeker of a firm grasp of high school English grammar, let us skip to the fourth entry, the entry we intuitively knows he or she seeks: "present participle of be." This is all which is contained in this fourth entry, and thank God Almighty once again that it contains no already proven to be inadequately defined words (or the word we seek to define for that mattter). The chase is on: let us now attempt an understanding of 'present' in order to understand 'being' in order to understand 'some' in order to understand 'something' in order to understand 'speech' in order to have any hope of understanding 'word' (which is already dubious since the definition's first word is already shown to be inadequately defined for anyone truly lacking an understanding of it.)
We will skip to the third entry (making use of our unfair yet firm grasp of English grammar): the first of six for 'present' as adjecctive: "now existing or in progress."
Let us understand 'now.': Six of the seven definitions in the first entry contain the words 'a' and 'the', with many also containing 'present', non of which our seeker can understand because they have already been shown to be inadequately defined or not yet defined. The only definition which does not ccontain these words is 4: 'sometimes' as in "now one and now another." Again, I'll make use of my unfair advantage: this is not what we're looking for. Entries two and three both contain 'a', 'the' or 'present.' Entry four is concerning 'now' as adjective, which I will skip over, making use once again of my unfair grasp of English grammar.
Our last hope may be in entry 5: Alas, this is the furthest thing we were looking for: 'now' as abbreviation: definition being "National Organization for Women." Our only hope for understanding 'now' then is if we stretch the meaning we are looking for to 'sometimes' as if by understanding exactly what 'sometimes' means we woud then understand exactly what 'now' means. It should be absolutely intuitive that 'now' is not the same as 'sometimes' and that even if one perfectly understood 'sometimes', one would (at best), only imperfectly understand (and probably not understand in any degree worth calling 'understanding') 'now.' It is clear then: the definition of 'now' is inadequate because it is not defined without use of the words 'a', 'the' or 'present' which cannot be defined without use of the words 'a','the' or 'present.' Thus we can further conclude that 'now', 'a', 'the' and 'present' are not adequately defined because they require the understanding of 'now', 'a', 'the' and 'present.'
Perhaps then we have some hope in supposing that we can somehow come to an understanding of 'being' by intuiting the meaning of 'now' once we have adequately defined the rest of the words in the definition: "now existing or in progress," thereby assisting us to understand 'present', 'some', 'something' and 'speech' in ascending order so we may understand finally what a 'word' is.
Thank God Almighty once again (or your lucky stars): "existing" has only one entry with only three definitions. Each definition has at least one option which does not contain words already proven to be inadequately defined for a person lacking genuine understanding of said words. (Perhaps you argue that they are adequately defined for people who already have knowledge of their meaning. But if you already have knowledge of a word's meaning, for what purpose do you define it? Especially if you do so in a way which is obiously inadequate to a definition's generally understood purpose: to learn a word's meaning. If defining words is done so for purely entertainment purposes, then why argue so passionately and sometimes violently over the exact definition? Perhaps you don't believe people feel so passionately about definitions. In this case, perhaps you are unaquainted with the history of philosophy and religion.)
Back to the topic, let us begin with the first viable option for a definition of 'existing': "to have real being whether material or spiritual."
Definition of 'to': Three entries, with 8, 5 and 3 definitions in each, multiple alternative definitions within. Making use of our unfair grasp of grammar, only the eighth definition in the first entry applies: "used as a function word to indicate that the following verb is an infinitive." Immediately we see that the only hope for an adequate definition of the word 'to' contains the word 'to' in its definition, along with 'a' and 'the', already shown to be so inadequately defined that they can hardly be said to be "defined" at all. 'To' is a dead end. Perhaps let's hold out hope of intuiting its definition after learning the definition of the other words.
Next: 'have': There are two entries; only the first applies. 25 of 32 options contain the word 'to', roughly the same amount contain 'a' and a smaller amount contain 'the.' Only 7 of the 32 do not contain words already shown to be inadequately defined (or simply 'undefined'), and these are truly more likely synonyms as opposed to definitions: 'receive', 'accept', 'exhibit/show', 'use/exercise', 'allow', 'bear' and 'bribe/suborn.'
I digress a moment to explain my simplification at this point of "inadequately defined" to "undefined": if a word is so inadequately defined that it cannot define itself without reference to itself or other words which cannot be defined except with reference to themselves, it does not aid in the understanding of the word. Simply because a definition has been "invented" does not, in the ordinary understanding of the word 'defined', mean that it has been defined. For example, I could give a definition of the word 'elephant' which is as follows: "an elephant." I have provided a definition, but to decare it "defined" would be pompous.
At this point, let's completely ignore the words 'to', 'now', 'a', and 'the.' Let's start accepting definitions with these words, hoping a person can intuit their meanings...
To Be Continued?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)