You think you know what a definition is. It’s that little blurb in the dictionary, right? Or the thing your teacher demanded when you used a word they didn't like. But if you sit down and try to define the word "definition" itself, things get weird fast.
In the world of logic and metaphysics, the definition of definition in philosophy isn't just a dry academic exercise. It's a foundational crisis. If we can't agree on what it means to "define" something, how can we agree on what "justice," "knowledge," or "love" actually are? Honestly, we’ve been arguing about this since Socrates started annoying people in the Athenian marketplace, and we still haven't reached a total consensus.
The Socratic Obsession and Why It Failed
Socrates was the original "definition guy." He’d walk up to someone—usually a guy feeling pretty good about himself—and ask for a definition of something like "courage" or "piety." The other guy would give an example. Socrates would then shake his head and say, "No, I don't want a list of brave things; I want the essence of bravery."
This is what philosophers call a real definition.
The idea here is that every concept has an underlying nature. It’s a "what-it-is-to-be" that thing. Plato, Socrates’ star pupil, took this even further with his Theory of Forms. To him, a definition wasn't just a sentence. It was a map to a perfect, non-physical reality. But here's the kicker: Socrates almost never found the definitions he was looking for. Most of the early dialogues end in aporia, which is just a fancy Greek word for "we are all now thoroughly confused."
This failure tells us something huge about the definition of definition in philosophy. Maybe "essences" aren't as easy to pin down as we’d like to believe. Or maybe they don't exist at all.
Nominal vs. Real: The Great Divide
Usually, when we talk about definitions today, we’re stuck between two camps.
On one side, you have nominal definitions. This is the "label" approach. A nominal definition just tells you how a word is used in a specific language. It’s a convention. If we all agree to call a four-legged barking animal a "dog," then that’s the definition. It’s basically just a linguistic shortcut. John Locke was a big fan of this. He thought we couldn't really know the "inner essence" of things (the real essence), so we had to settle for "nominal essences" based on observable properties.
📖 Related: Coach Bag Animal Print: Why These Wild Patterns Actually Work as Neutrals
On the other side, you still have the "real definition" crowd. They believe a definition should reveal the actual structure of the world. It’s the difference between saying "water is the clear stuff in the sink" and "water is $H_2O$." One is a name; the other is a description of reality.
The Rules of the Game (And Why We Break Them)
For a long time, the gold standard for defining something was Aristotle’s method: genus plus differentia.
It sounds technical, but it’s actually pretty simple. To define something, you first find its broad category (the genus) and then you find the specific trait that sets it apart from everything else in that category (the differentia).
Take the classic (and slightly controversial) definition of a human: "A rational animal."
- Genus: Animal.
- Differentia: Rational.
Simple. Elegant. Sorta wrong?
Biologists would have a field day with that now. Plus, what about "definitions" that don't fit that mold? Philosophers have identified several other types that show up in our daily lives:
- Stipulative Definitions: These are the "for the sake of this argument" definitions. You aren't saying this is what the word means forever, just what it means right now. "In this contract, 'The Client' refers to..."
- Precising Definitions: These take a fuzzy word and give it sharp edges. Think about the word "poverty." In a casual chat, it’s vague. For a government agency distributing aid, it needs a precise dollar amount.
- Ostensive Definitions: This is when you just point at something. "What is yellow?" Points at a lemon. It’s the most basic way we learn, but it’s philosophically messy because you might be pointing at the shape, the texture, or the fruit itself.
The Wittgenstein Grenade
In the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein basically walked into the room and threw a grenade at the whole idea of a "perfect" definition.
👉 See also: Bed and Breakfast Wedding Venues: Why Smaller Might Actually Be Better
He looked at the word "game."
Try to define "game." Is it something played for fun? Some games are professional and stressful. Does it require multiple players? Solitaire says no. Does it have winners and losers? Ring around the Rosie doesn't.
Wittgenstein argued that many concepts don't have a single, underlying essence that fits a neat definition. Instead, they have family resemblances. Just like members of a family might share a nose or a certain eye color without every single person having every single trait, "games" share a network of overlapping similarities.
This shifted the definition of definition in philosophy away from "finding the essence" and toward "understanding the use." If you know how to use the word "game" correctly in a sentence, you understand the concept, even if you can't write a dictionary entry for it.
The Problem of Circularity
One of the biggest traps in defining "definition" is circularity. You've probably seen this in a bad dictionary: "Happiness: the state of being happy."
Useful? Not at all.
Philosophers like Richard Robinson, who wrote the literal book on this (titled Definition), argue that we often confuse the thing with the sign. We get caught up in words and forget that definitions are tools. A tool is only as good as what it helps you build. If a definition of "justice" doesn't help you identify an unjust law, it’s a broken tool.
✨ Don't miss: Virgo Love Horoscope for Today and Tomorrow: Why You Need to Stop Fixing People
Why This Actually Matters for You
You might think this is all just ivory tower navel-gazing. It isn't.
The way we define things shapes our laws, our ethics, and our technology. Think about the current debates over "personhood." How we define a person determines who has rights. Is a fetus a person? Is an AI a person? Is a corporation a person? (The US Supreme Court says yes to that last one, which shows how powerful—and weird—definitions can be).
In science, the definition of definition in philosophy plays out in how we categorize the world. When Pluto was demoted from "planet" to "dwarf planet," it wasn't because Pluto changed. It was because the definition of planet was refined.
Limits of Language
We also have to admit that some things might be undefinable.
Blaise Pascal argued that the most basic terms—like "time," "number," and "space"—cannot be defined without using terms that are even more obscure. You just have to "get" them. If you try to define "time," you'll probably end up using words like "duration" or "sequence," which already require an understanding of time. It’s turtles all the way down.
Practical Steps for Better Thinking
Understanding the nuances of the definition of definition in philosophy isn't just for passing a logic 101 quiz. It’s a superpower for clear communication. Next time you find yourself in a heated argument or trying to understand a complex topic, try these steps:
- Identify the Type: Are you arguing over a nominal definition (how a word is used) or a real definition (how the world actually is)? Most online arguments are people using the same word for two different nominal concepts.
- Check for Family Resemblances: Stop looking for a "perfect" one-sentence definition for complex ideas like "art" or "freedom." Look for the clusters of traits instead.
- Avoid the "Dictionary Fallacy": Don't assume the Oxford English Dictionary has the final metaphysical word on a subject. Dictionaries track how people talk; they don't necessarily track truth.
- Clarify Your Genus: If you’re trying to explain something new, start with the "big bucket" it belongs in. It grounds the listener immediately.
- Watch for Circularity: If your explanation of a concept requires the listener to already understand that concept, start over.
When you realize that definitions are often just "working models" rather than eternal truths, you become a lot more flexible in your thinking. You stop fighting over labels and start looking at the things the labels are meant to represent. Philosophy isn't about having the answers written in stone; it's about making sure the tools you use to find those answers actually work.
Actionable Insight: The next time you're in a disagreement, stop and say: "Before we keep going, how are you defining [Key Term]?" You'll be shocked at how often the conflict evaporates once you realize you're just using different "nominal" definitions for the same word. Focus on the function of the word in your specific context rather than searching for an elusive, universal essence.