Re: Greek kitharis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@> wrote:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

>>> I don't agree with your definition of PW. Even if it were
>>> true,

>> Sheesh. 'True' is not a predicate applicable to definitions.

> I don't agree, and have never heard of any system in which
> definitions can't be described as "true" or "false".

Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.

> I've seen many
> uses of "true definitions" in philosophy, logic used in computer
> science, etc.

Only if you've been reading the work of very sloppy (or very
ignorant) writers: any competent philosopher or logician knows
better. Definitions are fundamentally arbitrary. They can be
more or less useful, but they can no more be true or false than
a piano concerto can. Truth and falsity are attributes of
assertions, and definitions, like piano concerti, are not
assertions.

The only sense in which 'this is the true definition of X' is
meaningful is 'this is the generally accepted definition of X',
where 'true' is used as an informal and rather sloppy shorthand
for what is really meant.