Proper name
Contents
Function
Cannot be defined
Aristotle
Singularium nec est scientia, neque definitio (Auctoritates Aristotelis, ed. J. Hamesse p. 130).
| Greek | Latin | English |
|---|---|---|
| Met. Z.15 (1039b27ff)[1] | ||
| διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα οὔτε ὁρισμὸς οὔτε ἀπόδειξις ἔστιν, ὅτι ἔχουσιν ὕλην ἧς ἡ φύσις τοιαύτη ὥστ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ εἶναι καὶ μή: διὸ φθαρτὰ πάντα τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα αὐτῶν. | Propter hoc autem et substantiarum sensibilium singularium nec diffinitio nec demonstratio est quia habent materiam cuius natura talis est ut contingat et esse et non; quopropter corruptibilia omnia singularia ipsorum | For this reason, also, there is neither definition of nor demonstration about sensible individual substances, because they have matter whose nature is such that they are capable both of being and of not being; for which reason all the individual instances of them are destructible. |
| Z.10 (1036a2-8) [2] | ||
| τοῦ δὲ συνόλου ἤδη, οἷον κύκλου τουδὶ καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστά τινος ἢ αἰσθητοῦ ἢ νοητοῦ—λέγω δὲ νοητοὺς μὲν οἷον τοὺς μαθηματικούς, αἰσθητοὺς δὲ οἷον τοὺς χαλκοῦς καὶ τοὺς ξυλίνους—τούτων δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁρισμός, ἀλλὰ μετὰ νοήσεως ἢ αἰσθήσεως γνωρίζονται. | Simul totius autem, puta circuli huius et singularium alicuius aut sensibilis aut intellectualis – intellectuales vero dico ut mathematicos, et sensibiles ut aereos et ligneos –, horum autem non est diffinitio, sed cum intelligentia aut sensu cognoscuntur. | But when we come to the concrete thing, e.g. this circle, i.e. one of the individual circles, whether perceptible or intelligible (I mean by intelligible circles the mathematical, and by perceptible circles those of bronze and of wood), – of these there is no definition, but they are known by the aid of intuitive thinking or of perception. |
| Z.15 (1040a27ff)[3] | ||
| ὥσπερ οὖν εἴρηται, λανθάνει ὅτι ἀδύνατον ὁρίσασθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀϊδίοις, μάλιστα δὲ ὅσα μοναχά, οἷον ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη. οὐ μόνον γὰρ διαμαρτάνουσι [30] τῷ προστιθέναι τοιαῦτα ὧν ἀφαιρουμένων ἔτι ἔσται ἥλιος, ὥσπερ τὸ περὶ γῆν ἰὸν ἢ νυκτικρυφές (ἂν γὰρ στῇ ἢ φανῇ, οὐκέτι ἔσται ἥλιος: ἀλλ᾽ ἄτοπον εἰ μή: ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος οὐσίαν τινὰ σημαίνει): ἔτι ὅσα ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου ἐνδέχεται, οἷον ἐὰν ἕτερος γένηται τοιοῦτος, δῆλον ὅτι ἥλιος ἔσται: κοινὸς ἄρα ὁ λόγος: [1040β] [1] ἀλλ᾽ ἦν τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ὁ ἥλιος, ὥσπερ Κλέων ἢ Σωκράτης: ἐπεὶ διὰ τί οὐδεὶς ὅρον ἐκφέρει αὐτῶν ἰδέας; γένοιτο γὰρ ἂν δῆλον πειρωμένων ὅτι ἀληθὲς τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον. | Quemadmodum ergo dictum est, latet quod impossibile diffinire in sempiternis, maxime vero quaecumque unica, ut sol et luna. Non solum enim peccant additione talium quibus ablatis adhuc erit sol, puta terram girans aut nocte absconditum; si enim steterit aut apparuerit, non adhuc erit sol. Sed absurdum si non; sol enim substantiam quandam significat. Amplius quaecumque in alio contingunt, ut si alter fiat talis, palam sol erit; communis ergo ratio. Sed erat singularium sol, it Cleon aut Socrates.Quoniam propter quid nullus ipsorum terminum profert ydee? Fiet enim utique manifestum temptantibus quia verum quod modo dictum est. | As has been said, then, the impossibility of defining individuals escapes notice in the case of eternal things, especially those which are unique, like the sun or the moon. For people err not only by adding attributes whose removal the sun would survive, e.g. ‘going round the earth’ or ‘night-hidden’ (for from their view it follows that if it stands still or is visible, it will no longer be the sun; but it is strange if this is so; for ‘the sun’ means a certain substance); but also by the mention of attributes which can belong to another subject; e.g. if another thing with the stated attributes comes into existence, clearly it will be [40b] a sun; the formula therefore is general. But the sun was supposed to be an individual, like Cleon or Socrates. After all, why does not one of the supporters of the Ideas produce a definition of an Idea? It would become clear, if they tried, that what has now been said is true. |
| Z.11. (1036a28-9)[4] | ||
| ἀπορεῖται δὲ εἰκότως καὶ ποῖα τοῦ εἴδους μέρη καὶ ποῖα οὔ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ συνειλημμένου. καίτοι τούτου μὴ δήλου ὄντος οὐκ ἔστιν ὁρίσασθαι ἕκαστον: τοῦ γὰρ καθόλου καὶ τοῦ εἴδους ὁ ὁρισμός: ποῖα οὖν ἐστὶ τῶν μερῶν ὡς ὕλη καὶ ποῖα [30] οὔ, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ φανερά, οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος ἔσται φανερὸς ὁ τοῦ πράγματος. | Dubitatur autem merito quae speciei sunt partes et quae non, sed simul sumpti. Hoc enim non manifesto existente non est diffinire unumquodque; universalis enim et speciei est diffinitio. Quae igitur sunt partium ut materia et quae non, si non fuerint manifeste, nec ratio erit manifesta quae rei. | Another question is naturally raised, viz. what sort of parts belong to the form and what sort not to the form, but to the concrete thing. Yet if this is not plain it is not possible to define any thing; for definition is of the universal and of the form. If then it is not evident what sort of parts are of the nature of matter and what sort are not, neither will the formula of the thing be evident. |
| Z.4 (1030a2-16)[5] | ||
| ἀλλὰ τὸ ἱματίῳ εἶναι ἆρά ἐστι τί ἦν εἶναί τι [ἢ] ὅλως; ἢ οὔ; ὅπερ γάρ τί ἐστι τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι: ὅταν δ᾽ ἄλλο κατ᾽ ἄλλου λέγηται, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπερ τόδε τι, οἷον ὁ [5] λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπερ τόδε τι, εἴπερ τὸ τόδε ταῖς οὐσίαις ὑπάρχει μόνον: ὥστε τὸ τί ἦν εἶναί ἐστιν ὅσων ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁρισμός. ὁρισμὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐκ ἂν ὄνομα λόγῳ ταὐτὸ σημαίνῃ (πάντες γὰρ ἂν εἶεν οἱ λόγοι ὅροι: ἔσται γὰρ ὄνομα ὁτῳοῦν λόγῳ, ὥστε καὶ ἡ Ἰλιὰς ὁρισμὸς ἔσται), [10] ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν πρώτου τινὸς ᾖ: τοιαῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅσα λέγεται μὴ τῷ ἄλλο κατ᾽ ἄλλου λέγεσθαι. οὐκ ἔσται ἄρα οὐδενὶ τῶν μὴ γένους εἰδῶν ὑπάρχον τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τούτοις μόνον (ταῦτα γὰρ δοκεῖ οὐ κατὰ μετοχὴν λέγεσθαι καὶ πάθος οὐδ᾽ ὡς συμβεβηκός): ἀλλὰ λόγος μὲν ἔσται ἑκάστου [15] καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τί σημαίνει, ἐὰν ᾖ ὄνομα, ὅτι τόδε τῷδε ὑπάρχει, ἢ ἀντὶ λόγου ἁπλοῦ ἀκριβέστερος: ὁρισμὸς δ᾽ οὐκ ἔσται οὐδὲ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι. | Ergo est quid erat esse aliquid, aut totaliter aut non. Quod quidem enim quid erat esse est id quod aliquid erat esse. Quando vero aliud de alio dicitur, non est quod quidem hoc aliquid, ut albus homo non est quod vere hoc aliquid, siquidem le hoc substantiis inest solum. Quare quid erat esse est quorumcumque ratio est diffinitio. Diffinitio vero est non si nomen rationi idem significet (omnes enim essent rationes termini; erit enim nomen quod cuilibet rationi idem, quare et Ylias diffinitio erit), sed si primi alicuius fuerit; talia vero sunt quaecumque dicuntur non eo quod aliud de alio dicatur. Non erit igitur nulli non generis specierum existens quid erat esse, sed hiis solum; haec namque videntur non secundum participationem dici et passionum nec ut accidens. Sed ratio quidem erit cuiuslibet et aliorum quid significat, si est nomen, quia hoc huic inest, aut pro sermone simplici certior; diffinitio vero non erit nec quod quid erat esse. | But is being-a-cloak an essence at all? Probably not. For the essence is precisely what something is; but when an attribute is asserted of a subject other than itself, the complex is not precisely what some ‘this’ is, e.g. white man is not precisely what some ‘this’ is, since thisness belongs only to substances. Therefore there is an essence only of those things whose formula is a definition. But we have a definition not where we have a word and a formula identical in meaning (for in that case all formulae or sets of words would be definitions; for there will be some name for any set of words whatever, so that even the Iliad will be a definition), but where there is a formula of something primary; and primary things are those which do not imply the predication of one element in them of another element. Nothing, then, which is not a species of a genus will have an essence – only species will have it, for these are thought to imply not merely that the subject participates in the attribute and has it as an affection, or has it by accident; but for ever thing else as well, if it has a name, there be a formula of its meaning – viz. that this attribute belongs to this subject; or instead of a simple formula we shall be able to give a more accurate one; but there will be no definition nor essence. |
See Aristotle and Individuation, S.M. Cohen.
Aquinas
In his commentary on Metaphysics book VII, see e.g. Lecture 10.1, Lecture 15.4.
John Locke
Essay, III vi. 4:
If you take away the abstract ideas by which we sort individuals and rank them under common names, then the thought of anything essential to any of them instantly vanishes. We have no notion of one (that is, of essential property) without the other (that is, of a sort or species), and that plainly shows how they are related. It is necessary for me to be as I am; God and nature have made me so. But nothing that I have is essential to me. An accident or disease may greatly alter my colour or shape; a fever or fall may take away my reason or memory, or both; an apoplexy may leave me with neither sense nor understanding—indeed, with no life.
Thomas Reid
Reid 1863 pp. 219-20.
It may farther be observed, that there are many words, which, though they may need explication, cannot be logically defined. A logical definition—that is, a strict and proper definition—must express the kind [genus] of the thing defined, and the specific difference by which the species defined is distinguished from every other species belonging to that kind. It is natural to the mind of man to class things under various kinds, and again to subdivide every kind into its various species. A species may often be subdivided into subordinate species, and then it is considered as a kind.
From what has been said of logical definition, it is evident, that no word can be logically defined which does not denote a species; because such things only can have a specific difference; and a specific difference is essential to a logical definition. On this account there can be no logical definition of individual things, such as London or Paris. Individuals are distinguished either by proper names, or by accidental circumstances of time or place; but they have no specific difference; and, therefore, though they may be known by proper names, or may be described by proper names, or may be described by circumstances or relations, they cannot be defined. It is no less evident that the most general words cannot be logically defined, because there is not a more general term, of which they are a species.
Thus proper names do do not really belong in dictionaries, and are not strictly part of the vocabulary of a language. Reid says that ‘in all languages, general words make the greatest part of the language, and proper names but a very small and inconsiderable part of it’.
John Stuart Mill
Mill 1843 I. viii. 1.
The simplest and most correct notion of a Definition is, a proposition declaratory of the meaning of a word; namely, either the meaning which it bears in common acceptation, or that which the speaker or writer, for the particular purposes of his discourse, intends to annex to it.
The definition of a word being the proposition which enunciates its meaning, words which have no meaning are unsusceptible of definition. Proper names, therefore, cannot be defined. A proper name being a mere mark put upon an individual, and of which it is the characteristic property to be destitute of meaning, its meaning cannot of course be declared; though we may indicate by language, as we might indicate still more conveniently by pointing with the finger, upon what individual that particular mark has been, or is intended to be, put. It is no definition of “John Thomson” to say he is “the son of General Thomson;” for the name John Thomson does not express this. Neither is it any definition of “John Thomson” to say he is “the man now crossing the street.” These propositions may serve to make known who is the particular man to whom the name belongs, but that may be done still more unambiguously by pointing to him, which, however, has not been esteemed one of the modes of definition.
See also ibid 1. ii. 5, saying that a proper name is a word which shows which thing is being talked about, without telling us anything about it. This is sometimes called the Millian theory of proper names, however Mill says that a proper name has no meaning at all, whereas the Millian theory holds that its meaning is its bearer.
Geach
Geach 1957 p. 68
There is nothing essential to an individual. To a thing to which a general term is rightly applied, those attributes may be said to be essential which logically follow from the general term’s being true of it; but no attributes logically follow from a thing’s being given a proper name”
