X-Ftn-To: George Hammond 

George Hammond  wrote:
>[Hammond]
>FALSE.  A "definition" only applies to something which is
>an "arbitrary human convention".  There IS NO SUCH THING as a
>"definition" of a real material object whose identity
>is fixed by natural reality, not "arbitrary human convention".
>I happen to be sane buddy, look out.

You really don't know what it is. You're not just careless, or lacking
focus. You actually don't know what a definition of a term is. And it
is the foundation of both mathematics, logic, philosophy, semantics
and all scientific disciplines in general. You really don't know
anything about it, or understand its purpose. You don't understand
that a definition is the foundation of clear thinking, a necessary
prerequisite of any analysis or synthesis. You don't know that the
terms need to be defined prior to passing judgments regarding them,
and that the point of a definition is to make a connection between the
essence of something, and an intellectual category: a word. Without
such connection, words would be just arbitrary, meaningless sounds and
letters. 

Really, you should be stripped of all your academic titles, what you
displayed in this exchange would fully warrant it.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org