[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 4 KB, 200x167, 200px-Red_Guards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2392996 No.2392996 [Reply] [Original]

What's the word for something that is capable of self-definition?
/lit/- 4chan's thesaurus
Oh, and philosophy general.

>> No.2393003

what do you mean capable of self definition?

Conscious?

>> No.2393007

Autological?

>> No.2393014

Autological? Tautology?

>> No.2393019

The only thing capable of defining itself is a human. We are given that power due to consciousness.

Something that is capable of self definition is conscious. The only inarguable example of a conscious being being a human being.

>> No.2393022

A dictionary can define itself; humans maybe.

>> No.2393030

>>2393022

The dictionary doesnt define itself it merely contains its own definition. There is a difference

>> No.2393031

>>2393019
You're an idiot. self definition doesn't mean 'the ability to categorise'.

autological is the correct answer, OP.

>> No.2393032

self-definitive?

>> No.2393033

>>2392996
"dasein" is a pretty nice term for it, depending on ones interpretation.

>> No.2393034

>>2393031

"An autological word (also called homological word) is a word expressing a property which it also possesses itself (the word "short"

That =/= capable of self definition.

The only thing capable of definition AT ALL is a conscious being. The answer has to be a conscious being. Defining something DOES = the ability to categorize.

>> No.2393039

"No logical system can prove itself to be self consistent and hence cannot implicitly define itself. My proof follows-" -Bertrand Russell

>> No.2393050

>>2393034
>The only thing capable of definition AT ALL is a conscious being. The answer has to be a conscious being. Defining something DOES = the ability to categorize.

Granted, Op's question is worded badly but trust me autological is what he means. he most certainly isn't talking about humans ability to define words. that would the retarded and OP is not retarded. Well let's just wait and see what he says shall we?

>> No.2393055

>>2393039

So a formal axiomatic logical system can not prove itself internally consistent if it is of a certain level of complexity.

Love that you think that matters in this discussion.

>> No.2393060

>>2393034

onomatopoeia is certainly a species of the word you're trying to denote. The power of a word to embody the sense-specifics of an experience cannot but be self-definition.

>> No.2393065

>>2393050

I don't care what OP wanted. The way his question was phrased, human / conscious is the answer to his question.

He clearly was looking for Autological, but fuck him.

>> No.2393066

onomatopoeia

>> No.2393068

>>2393060

No, it isnt self definition. At all. ARe you high? STop waxing poetic and use ya head.

>> No.2393079

maybe performative act / self-fulfilling prophecy?

>> No.2393096

>>2393065
by self definitive he meant self descriptive, like the way sesquipedalian is a sesquipedalian word. this could easily be construed as self definitive. the word is long and means long. the word defines itself.

>> No.2393117

>>2393096

But, that is not defining itself.

>> No.2393123

wait wait I GOT IT

synecdoche

>> No.2393134

>>2393117
yes but your idea of 'only human brains can define things' goes without saying.

>> No.2393144

>>2393123
no thats a part used to represent the whole or vice versa

>> No.2393152

自我定義

>> No.2393154

>>2393144
yeah but if I call a popsicle a cold on the cob you knew I was referring to popsicle, so therefore it defined itself

>> No.2393164

>>2393117

Yes but in the onomatopoeia the signifier/signified boundary collapses, making that division in no way universal.

>> No.2393172

>>2393164

I wish you people were not so caught up in trying to think you're smart to stick to basics and be sensible rather than saying irrelevant shit.

Really, I do. Pseudointellectual city, thats why I never come here anymore.

>> No.2393175

>>2393154

Fucking cold on the cob is my nemesis. Nothing worse than a cold cob!

>> No.2393196

Op here. I was thinking on the nature of sentience, and its ability to (hopefully) define itself. I tried "Autological" but got metalanguage. This led to solipsism and determinism.
My thought was 'can a sentient being define itself when it paradoxically is a logical system, and does this that the human definition of oneself is inaccurate'?

>> No.2393199

>>2393196
"does this that the"

whozulwhuzzle? try again, boss

>> No.2393208

>>2393199
Fuck. Should be 'does this mean that the'.

>> No.2393416

>>2393033
In that case there's also Phusis, "the nature or properties of the thing as it is realised from beigining to end", it's related to the idea that the true name of something is also part of it.

>> No.2393498

Substance, or the material, everything outside the consciousness.

As opposed to subject, or the consciousness, which tirelessly tries to define itself but is in constant struggle with that.

>> No.2393519

I hate to say it, but Deist is right. The only thing capable of defining itself within a closed system is a human being. Godel's Theorem only confirms it in a certain defined (hah) context, but outside of that context you're still stuck between phenomenology or philosophy of mind, both of which come to the same conclusion through very different paths, although some schools of philosophy of mind might conclude that it's possible to simulate/duplicate such a self-definition... but they'd agree it sure hasn't been done yet.

>> No.2393549

>>2393196
>'can a sentient being define itself when it paradoxically is a logical system, and does this that the human definition of oneself is inaccurate'?
A sentient being is the only thing capable of defining itself. Logic doesn't enter into it. Sentience itself doesn't require logic, and definitions don't require logic, either, unless required to by a sentient being (language).
If you're talking logic, we go right back to Godel.

>> No.2393590

A human being can only define itself by separating itself from the material world in which he exists, therefore not self defining. Objects are self defining in that their function is built into their very being.

>> No.2393605

>>2393549
>>2393519

If what the OP was asking for was simply the capacity to consider oneself as oneself, then the tripfag was right. But surely the question was not as uninteresting as that? The truth of this matter rather seems to be that there is no entity that is able to provide a definition of itself that is self-sustaining in such a way that it could not be subject to inquiry; the criteria for such a claim would be defying of skeptical arguments, and would as such be groundbreaking if it really did exist.

Even so, assuming that such a thing is a potential existence, which it really is not, its metaphysical impossibility would immediately transcend into problems inherent in linguistics, such as those pointed out by Jaques Derrida.

>> No.2394372

>>2393019
Dolphins an chimps can too, fucktard.

>> No.2394376

Nothing wrong with using "self-defining"

>> No.2394377

Instinctual

>> No.2394379

>>2393590
And you're implying that humans lack the ability to define and create the material world

>> No.2394391

awesome pic OP
wish I could get it as a wallpaper

>> No.2394393

>>2393605
What you just described sounds really similar to an Ubermensch or Buddha.