 Okay, so we're gonna look at when we start investigating these arguments, we're gonna start with terms. And terms really are the basic unit of comprehension, and by basic I don't mean the simplest. It's actually hard to define, it's not a skill that they teach frequently, and trying to do so can often lead to some confusion, especially when you have really bad definitions. So in this chapter we're gonna look at rules for defining. We're gonna give kinds of definitions, and we're gonna look at a few exercises. When defining can be sticky business, can get lost, get in the bushes really easily. To kind of guide us in our way to make sure that we know what we're doing, we're defining, we have some rules in place. So the first rule is to define literally, and this is literally as opposed to metaphorically. Metaphorically you say something that's literally false, but has some other kind of artistic or interpretive meaning. So if we were gonna define these trees, and if I was defining metaphorically, I'd say that the trees are the umbrella of the trail. Very deep, profound work here, obviously. That would be violating the rule of defining literally. When you define literally, you say what it literally is, what it actually is. What metaphorically or interpretively or creatively it is. Okay, so let's define literally. Second one is to define cognitively, and you define cognitively as opposed to emotionally. That's one thing to tell what to define a thing is another thing to give it some kind of emotional quality, either an appreciative or a critical emotion. To define this emotionally in an appreciative sense, we say that the trees are the wooden guardians of life on the planet. It's also a little bit of metaphor in there, but I think you get what I mean. So when you define cognitively, appeal only to descriptions, appeal only to the intellects not to emotional states. So next we have define referentially. And what I mean by that is to define what you're defining in terms of something else, not in terms of itself. So if I were to define literally and cognitively, but not referentially, if I define it in terms of itself, I'd say a tree is a plant that's a tree. Yeah, that doesn't help at all. That just tells me that a tree is a tree. So when you define referentially, you define it in terms of something else. That's not defining referentially. So defining precisely is the next rule. Define precisely. So when you define precisely, you define what you're defining in terms of that and your definition defines only that. So you don't want a definition that includes too many things. If we want to get really super broad, say a tree is something, yeah, I mean, that's true. That's cognitive. That's not emotive. It's even, in a sense, referential. But it doesn't tell you anything about what it is. It's not precise. I can even say a tree is a plant. And I still haven't been precise enough. We can see lots of different kinds of plants behind me. Trees, grass, bushes, shrubs, ivies, all that. These are all plants. But if I'm going to define precisely, as opposed to vaguely, when we violate this rule, we're defining vaguely, we're giving a definition that includes way too many things. Next rule is to define univocally. And what this means is, as opposed to ambiguously. Now I realize that very often, the ambiguity and vagueness kind of get conflated together. But this is not the same thing. This is when you define in a way that includes way too many things. Can't tell a tree from a plant, can't tell a tree from an ivy, from a shrub, so on and so forth. When you define ambiguously, you use two different definitions for the same term. So we might define tree as a wooden perennial plant with roots and branches. That's a stab at defining a tree. And also a branching chart showing family generations. These are not the same thing. Now we get the term family tree from the plant tree as a kind of an illustration. But they're not the same thing. When you define univocally, you're defining as opposed to ambiguously. Defining univocally using one and only one definition as opposed to a couple of different definitions. You mean one and only one thing. All right. And finally we have defining affirmatively. And when you define affirmatively, it's not mean like with confidence, right? It means that you're defining in terms of what the thing is as opposed to what it is not. So I might try to define this here as, well, it's not an ivy. Well that doesn't help us really. Saying what something is not does not tell us what the thing is. So we have our rules for defining. Define literally as opposed to metaphorically. Define cognitively as opposed to emotively. You define referentially as opposed to circularly or defining just in terms of itself. Define precisely as opposed to vaguely. You define univocally as opposed to ambiguously. And you define affirmatively as opposed to negatively. Well, now that we have our rules for definitions, now maybe we can avoid that thicket, that mess of trying to define our terms. And now we can move on to the kinds of definitions that we have. Well, we're not quite out of the woods yet. Trying to get our, we're start looking at different ways of defining next. Now, before I, before we get into the different kinds of definitions, I want to introduce two terms. The definines and the definindum, right? The definines and the definindum. The definines is what's doing the defining, right? So if you look in a dictionary and you see all these sentences, you have the word and then the definition afterwards. The definition is the definines, right? That's what's doing the defining. The definindum is what's being defined. The definindum is what's being defined. The definines and the definindum, all right. So when I talk about these different kinds of definitions, I'm going to be referring to the definines and the definindum, all right. So the first, and we have two, or at least three, actually, three main ways of defining. We got defining by extension and defining by intention. And there's kind of sort of a third way, defining by exclusion. It's really not defining, but it can be helpful in terms of understanding definindums, right? For the sake of, you know, discussion, right? We'll consider the third way of defining, even though it's not really. So we got extension, we got defining by intention, and we got defining by exclusion, all right? Okay. So let's first deal with defining by extension. Defining by extension, broadly speaking, or generally speaking, is defining by examples or cases. And there's had to be very vivid cases, had to be very vivid examples in order for us to understand what's going on, in order for the audience to understand the definindum. So for instance, all right, so let's say I'm defining tree. My definindum is tree. If I'm defining by what's called demonstrative definition, demonstrative, providing a demonstration. A demonstrative definition is simply pointing to cases, pointing to examples. So my demonstrative definition for tree is that those, those, that definines right there is defining by demonstration, just pointing to cases. Defining by demonstration really has to involve what's right in front of you has to be visible. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. All of these different ways of defining are good, but they also have their limits. You really want to give a very explicit definines, try to use as many of these strategies as you can. Okay. So that's demonstrative definition, just pointing to cases. Another was called enumerative. Now enumerative is just where you start listing, you know, stating or writing particular cases of the definindum. Now this usually helps if you have famous examples or really, really well known examples. Now I personally don't know many famous trees. So that's not going to help. But suppose we're defining actor or, you know, those who act, right? Well, then I say, well, actors are people like Denzel Washington, Jason Momoa, Viola Davis and Tamla Tamida. Great. I provided a list of actors. That would be an enumerative definition of actor. All right. So we have defining by demonstration. We have enumerative, stating or providing a list of the definindum. And finally, the last defining by extension is subclass, defining by subclass. So we have, suppose I'm still defining by tree, right? I'm defining tree, not just that tree or something, but all trees, right? Well I can start providing subclasses, groups within tree. So you know, specifically with the San Antonio, Cedar Elm, Oak, Crate Myrtle. Those are three subclasses of tree. And so that definindum is you're simply providing those subclasses. So you do it with a lot of different sorts of things, okay? So just a rephrase. I got the definindums, I got the definindum. We had defining by extension, which I just talked about. And defining by extension is pointing to, you know, cases, examples. Defining by intention is defining by meaning or concepts. And defining by exclusion is defining in terms of what it's not. So and again, that's not really a definition, but we're going to pretend it is. All right, so I just did extension. Let's go try intention. So we got, so we looked at defining by extension. Now let's look at defining by intention. Now remember, defining by extension is kind of pointing to examples, right? Looking at cases, pointing to particular cases and defining that way. So you said that thing, that thing over there, that's the definindum. Now defining by intention, the definindum is using concepts and meaning. Which you already understand to define what you don't yet understand, okay? So the first one we're going to look at is defining by synonym. Defining by synonym. Defining by synonymy can be a little tricky, right? You especially have to use a word that's already better understood than the definindum. And to use a word or a concept or meaning that's better understood than the definindum. So again, if we're going to point to tree, right, use tree as our example. You know, maybe we define tree, we say tree is timber, but yeah, okay, now even at this point, this really looks like a self-referential definition, looks like we're violating one of our rules. We probably wouldn't try to define tree in terms of using synonyms, it's not a really great case. Because we already pretty well understand tree, I mean, at least we think we do, we're looking around like, yeah, I understand what a tree is. And even an extent to which I understand tree, I'm going to understand that timber is tree, so now, okay, so maybe that's going to violate one of our rules, but let's try and adjust the case real quick. You might be familiar with timber, you probably are timber, but you're maybe less familiar with topiary. And if you're less familiar with topiary, then tree is a really good definition by synonym. You know, if you don't have a lot of time, you just got to define and go, right, drive by definition, so to speak. You've got a tree might be a good synonym, you know, defined by synonym for topiary. So again, so just to clarify, right, defining by synonym is to use a word or a concept that's really similar, although probably not exact, to the definitum, all right. So we've got defining by synonym, there's also defining by etymology. And defining by etymology is to give the history of the word. Words have histories, right, that we, our language is not a static thing, it changes over time, so sometimes it changes in ways you don't predict, but language has a history, and when you define etymology, etymologically, it's a tough way to say, etymologically, you give the history of the term as a way to provide a definitum. So, you know, give a tree, right, tree comes from a Germanic word, sorry, old English word, treeow, which has, which is a variation on the Germanic word, on a Germanic word and an Indo-European word. Now that tells you something in the history of the term. Another case might be something like innocent. I may or may not have mentioned it in these video series before, but innocent has a lot of different definitions, and it originally comes from a word, I believe it's in Latin, a word which was used in a very specific instance. Now today we might use innocent to talk about somebody who's morally pure or is committed to a fault, something like that, is good nature, you know, I might say the innocent is in that way, but innocent means something like not guilty because you're ignorant, not guilty because you didn't know what you're doing. So if I'm walking around and I've got a bunch of packages and I actually step on your foot and you say, ow, I'm sorry, I didn't see your foot, I'm innocent because I didn't know what I was doing. So etymological definition, providing a definitum that gives history of the term. The next one we have is a lexical definition. A lexical definition is one you're probably most familiar with. It's usually written in the form of a sentence and it's composed of two main parts. A lexical definition will have a genus and a deferentia. So the genus is the kind of thing, is the kind of thing, and the deferentia is what distinguishes the definitum from other members of that kind. So looking at tree again, the genus of tree is plant. It's a plant. Now there's lots of different plants. We mentioned this before. So if you gave just a genus, you'd be breaking the rule about precision. It would be a vague definition. So you had to give the deferentia. That's what distinguishes tree from other kinds of plants. What does that? Well trees are perennial plant, meaning they don't die and come back the next year. They continue living on. They usually have wooden bark, branches and deep roots. This is what distinguishes a tree from, say, ivy, which doesn't have a trunk, yeah, trees have trunk, distinguishes it from shrubs. It's also usually don't have trunks, usually just kind of branching up out of the ground. Distinguishes it from cactus, cactus are not wooden. We can kind of go on. They're perennial which distinguishes it from a lot of wildflowers. So the lexical definition of tree would be a plant, that's the genus, with a plant that is wooden, usually has bark, roots, branches, and perennial. That would be the genus and deferentia of tree. Not the best definition of tree, by the way, there are better ones, but it does illustrate what a lexical definition is. So these are three kinds of defining by intention. Edimology and lexical. Okay, so we've got defining by extension and we've got defining by intention. Now, strictly speaking, right, these are the ways to define. I even hazard to mention this, you know, defining by exclusion, because it's not defining. I mean, we're defining in terms of what it's not, which is really kind of a contradiction. But I found that by using these approaches, especially when you're writing, it can be helpful to avoid some confusions, even though you haven't done any defining. Now, when you define it by exclusion, you're saying that the definitum is not one of these things. Now, again, you need to be careful and do this only after you've really done the work of defining by either extension or intention or both. As I said earlier, taking all of these strategies, when you're defining a term, say when you're writing a paper, you're defining a term, use all these strategies. This is good, helpful work. Using these strategies as much as you can can easily produce 100-word definitions for whatever term you're trying to define. Actually, 100 would be really tight, 100-word definitions would be really tight. You'd be able to do a very, very frugal in your terms for this. It can probably easily do a 300-word definitions for a lot of these strategies. And I've yet to see a paper in the humanities that then require at least three terms defined. And all of a sudden, a five-page paper is easy and 10-page paper is real doable. And if you like to write too much, like me, it gives you a nice way to do that. Anyway, so we got two ways of defining by exclusion. This is defining, quote, unquote, defining in terms of what's not. First is through antonym, antonym. Now we saw synonym earlier, and that can be helpful. It's not perfect, but it can be helpful. It's a quick way to define. Defining by antonym is kind of like that, but it has its limits. So when you define by antonym, you're defining in terms of polar opposite, polar opposite. Now this isn't always going to work. As far as I know, there is no antonym for tree. There is no opposite of tree. I can't even picture, maybe you say animal, but no, not really, because they're just not comparable. I mean, they're both alive, but it's not like it's an opposite. If it's completely opposite, it has to be dead as well. But rocks aren't the opposite of trees. So some terms, some definite items, really just don't have antonyms. But others do. It can be really simple, right? Up. How do I define up? It's the opposite of down, right? That's down, this is up. Defining by antonym has its uses. It can be kind of like sending them a quick way of doing it. The other way of defining by exclusion is to define by what's called specious similar. Now, what I'm trying to get at here is sometimes it's easy to have confusing cases. So for instance, I mentioned earlier, we often use ambiguous and vague interchangeably, but they don't mean the same thing. They're actually kind of a specious similar to each other. And if you're going to define vagueness, after you define vagueness, it might be helpful to say, let's not confuse this with ambiguity and then give a clear distinction between those two. So specious similars are somehow terms that are sort of, you know, they kind of resemble in some way or maybe just by convention, we've adopted them to be similar. But they're not. There's an important difference between the two. And to avoid a confusion, yeah, it can be helpful to give the specious similar and tell why it's not that thing. So for, you know, maybe an example of this would be hyena. I imagine you all are familiar with hyenas and you probably think of them as some kind of laughing dog, right? So in the movie Lion King, which happened more years ago than I like to remember, the hyenas in the movie acted very much like dogs, right? They fought like dogs. They talked like dogs. They even kind of looked like dogs. Now it might be helpful at this point when you're defining hyena, you can do a variety of different things. But you could also say, by the way, it's hyenas, while they might look like dogs or wolves or coyotes or dingos, right? They're not. There's two main kinds of groups in biology, phylogenically speaking, phylogenically, at least two main groups, phylogenically speaking, phylogenically means, you know, chasing the, literally like the genetic ancestry of the animals. So what kind of species gave birth to what kind of species and tracing that on back? Well, it might surprise you to know that, you know, wolves, coyotes, dingos, dogs, these are all canoforms or dog-like, right? Literally means dog-like or canoforms. They have a common ancestor, right? But hyenas are not canoforms. They're of, oh, now I just blanked on the term. I think it's something like phyliforms or from felines. So genetically speaking, hyenas have the same genetic ancestor as cats, lions, mongoose, or actually even in that group, right? So coyotes, dingos, wolves, dogs, they are species similars to hyenas. And if you're defining hyenas, it's helpful to have that species similar. Because you might get confused. All right, so this is, you know, defining quote, unquote, we're pretending it's actually defining, it's not actually defining, defining by exclusions in terms of what it's not. And we got through antonym and species similars. Hello, everyone. Sorry for the disembodied voice routine here, but there's a lot of text in these problems so I couldn't really find a place to put my bulbous head. Okay, so first exercise we're going to look at, right? So what sort of definition is this? What sort of definition is this? So we have this definition here. Knowledge means a belief that is both justified and true. Okay, so before I bring out the options, right, this will be a multiple choice question. Before I bring out the options, I want you to think about this. Take a look at the definition and try to understand what kind is it. Ask yourself, is the definition of exclusion? Is it a definition by extension? Or is it a definition by intention? So just at first glance, nowhere in this sentence, nowhere in this definition, is any kind of notion about how knowledge is not something, right? So it's knowledge is, right? Knowledge means this. So if it's not saying knowledge is not this, well, then we can leave aside exclusion. This is only definition by either extension or intention. And when you think about that, okay, is it a definition by extension or intention? Is it pointing at different examples? Is the definition pointing at examples or pointing at particular instances or cases or subclass, right? Or is it pointing to meaning? Pointing to meaning. So we got the four options here. We got subclass, cognitive, enumerative, and lexical. All right. So take a look at that first one, a subclass. Is this a definition by subclass? Well, is it giving, you know, kinds of knowledge, right? So we might say, well, knowledge means anything among scientific investigation, mathematical hypotheses, history claims, right? No, it's not doing that. That would be some kind of definition by subclasses is giving different, you know, sorts within knowledge. So it's not subclass. Okay. What about enumerative? Is that listing particular famous knowledge claims, right? Or particular knowledge claims. I'm not even sure really what that would mean. Maybe something like knowledge means two plus two equals four, the Empire, so the Statue of Liberty is located near New York City and the Earth orbits around the sun. Okay, right, those are classic knowledge claims. But that's not what's happening here. That's not what's happening here. So those are both, you know, extension. And that's, you know, that's probably not what's happening. So we've left aside exclusion and we left aside extension. So this has to be knowledge by intention. Okay, knowledge means a belief as opposed to cognitive. Well, cognitive isn't a kind of definition. That's one of the rules for defining, but it's not a, you know, remember one of the rules defined cognitively as opposed to emotively. So cognitive isn't a kind of definition. Well, then that leaves aside lexical. And that's what's happening here, right? We've got the genus, a belief, and the species, both justified and true. So this exercise, you know, asking for what sort of definition is, this is a lexical definition. You'd mark that. Okay, let's try another one. Which of the following is a specious similar definitions of knowledge? So think back, specious similar. That's when we say this is close, but not quite, right? There's an important difference, right? Something similar, but not quite. Well, what sort of definition would that be? Or I just try to think about what that definition would look like, right? Would it be a listing? No, that'd be a numerative. Would it be a genus and species? No, that'd be lexical. Okay, so this isn't a definition by extension or intention. We've got a definition by exclusion. So any sort of definition that's extension or intention is automatically not the answer to this question. We only have two kinds, we only have one other kind of definitions by exclusion that's antonym. So think about that even before you look at the options. All right, so let's take a look at the options. Oblique that is both justified and true. Comprehension, one of a set of beliefs such as the Earth is more or less spherical. Got that series. And the knowledge is different from opinion in that opinions do not have confirmable evidence. Okay, so that first one, oblique that's both justified and true. Well, we just saw that, right? That's a lexical definition. More importantly, there's no claiming here that knowledge is not that. So this is not exclusion. We can only set that aside. Okay, let's look at the next one. One of a set of beliefs such as quote the Earth is more or less spherical. Two added to itself as four. Trees are kind of plant. San Antonio is not the capital of Texas. So there's that San Antonio is not the capital of Texas. Well, don't be fooled by that, right? That's not the definition. The definition is one of a set of beliefs such as that, that, that, that, that. Well, now we've got a list of beliefs. Well, if you're getting a list of beliefs, first of all, this is definition by extension. So it's already not the right answer, but this is enumerative. So we got these real clear cases of knowledge. This is an enumerative definition, right? So that's not what the question is looking for. So let's look next at comprehension. Well, here we have a single word for the definite lines and it's not saying that knowledge is not comprehensive, it's saying knowledge is comprehension. Well, then if it's just a single word, that's synonym, right? That's a definition by synonym. So that's not the speech is similar. So we're left with this, right? Knowledge is different from opinion in that opinions do not have confirmable evidence. So saying like knowledge is not opinion, right? There's this important difference between them. And that's the speech is similar, definite lines for knowledge. So we've got two different kinds of problems. First asks for what sort of definition, guess a definition, you're supposed to identify the kind of definition. Second kind of problem says, okay, here we've got different definitions. Which one is this kind of definition for that, right? Now this next question, this is getting more difficult. Is this a good definition? So the first two sets of problems presumed, right? The definitions were fine. Just asking for which one is which definition, right? Here on out, asking, well, is this even a good definition? So what you have to remember here, what you have to think about are the rules for defining. Are the rules for defining? Remember the six rules? Or how many rules it was? It was define literally as opposed to metaphorically. Define cognitively as opposed to emotionally. Define referentially as opposed in terms of itself. Define precisely as opposed to vaguely. Define univocally as opposed to and ambiguously. And then define affirmatively as opposed to negatively. So here's the question, is this a good definition? So here we have knowledge means a belief. Okay, so first things first. Before looking at the options, is this a good definition? Even what kind of definition is it? Maybe it's not exclusion, right? We can leave that aside. It's not exclusion because it's not saying knowledge means not a belief, right? It's not exclusion, so we can leave those aside. Is it extension? Well, if it is, we don't really know which belief we're talking about here. It's just ably. And even if that were the case, it doesn't seem like just any belief we have is knowledge. What about intention? Is it a synonym? Maybe, kinda? But again, it's certainly not a perfect fit. Again, there's lots of beliefs that are not knowledge. It's not an etymological definition, right? We don't have the history of the term knowledge. If it's a lexical definition, we've only got a genus here. We don't have a species. So already, even just looking at it, doesn't seem like this is a really good definition. But the trick is to figure out why, right? So we got four options here. Yes, it's a good definition because it's a synonym. Or yes, it's a good definition because it's demonstrative. Or no, because it's ambiguous. Or no, because it's vague. All right. Well, let's look at yes because it's a synonym. Is belief a good synonym for knowledge? I don't think so, right? Again, there's lots of beliefs that are not knowledge. And this is probably just not, it doesn't really look like it's a good fit. I mean, we don't say, I know that the earth is orbiting around the sun versus, I believe that the earth is orbiting around the sun. Well, the second one just doesn't mean quite the same thing. Try even something more controversial, say, just for example, say, I believe, I believe that, oh gosh, I'm losing an example here. So say, I believe that what? The Dallas Cowboys will win the Super Bowl versus I know that the Dallas Cowboys will win the Super Bowl, okay, there's a huge difference between those two sentences. Maybe this is a good way to test a synonym, whether something makes a good synonym. Try using the synonyms in pretty much identical sentences, except swapping out the synonyms, see if you get the same thing. And in this case, no, that doesn't work, right? No, this isn't a good synonym. Demonstrative, so remember, with demonstrative definitions, you have to actually have the thing in front of your point to it and it has to be visible. Well, that doesn't count here, right? A belief is not a visible thing. At best, if we're gonna do a definition by extension, we'd have to provide a list of beliefs. It would be an enumative definition and that doesn't work here. Okay, so is it ambiguous? Well, we don't have two different definites for a single term. This isn't a multi-vocal sort of, this isn't two different definitions here, we've only got one definition. So yeah, we're left with this, it's vague. It's vague, and yeah, that fits. This definites has a two-wider definition, it says all beliefs, right? All beliefs. Well, lots of beliefs aren't knowledge. So this is not a good definition, the reason is that it's vague, right? All right, let's try another one. This is gonna be more difficult because now we have an entire paragraph. So read the following passage, is it a good use of terms? This is gonna be hard, right? This is gonna tax you, you have to think about this. So here's the paragraph, you have free will. Consequently, you could perform those actions which have no physical or causal restraints. According to our laws, we will not be punished for those actions guaranteed by our freedoms. I can freely will to smash random car windshields. Therefore, I should not be punished for smashing windshields. All right, so first thing right off the back, this should raise alarms because that conclusion is just bizarre. I shouldn't be punished for smashing windshields. Well, no, you should be punished. So already you should get the clue that something went wrong here. The trick is to figure out where and which terms have something wonky going on. Now before I try to bring out the answers here, before this just goes for any of the problems that you look at for this course, before you look at the options available to choose from, try to figure out the answer beforehand. Otherwise the options might throw you a little bit. So let's take a look at this paragraph. What terms might be causing problems here? So just start with the conclusion. I should not be punished for smashing windshields. I mean, that just sounds weird. And really the real relevant term that's punished. Smashing windshields, that's not interesting. That's an action, that's not a term. But punished, that's a term that's doing some work. Free will, that's another term that's doing some work. And to look at the sentence before that, I can freely will to smash random car windshields. According to our laws, we will not be punished for this action guaranteed by freedom. So freedoms is there, laws is there. Physical and causal restraints, right? You can perform those actions with no physical causal restraints. And then the first sentence, right? You have free will. So again, free will is popping up. So free will, laws, freedoms, punish, these are the terms that are doing the most work in this paragraph. So let's look at the options now. So we got some options popping out here. So the first one, is this a good use? So the question is, is this a good use of terms? And the first option says, yes, all terms are used univocally and precisely. Well, immediately you should just be paranoid with that answer. In fact, just take it from me. If your first inclinations say all terms are used univocally and precisely, think twice, right? Think twice. So let's just cast that one aside. So the next one, will is vague. Will is vague. All right. Is it vague? Do we even have a definition here? Well, we almost don't really have a definition. I mean, you have these first two sentences. This is the closest we have to something like a definition. It's like, you have free will. Consequently, you can perform those actions which have no physical or causal restraints. Okay, so what are these two sentences tells? First of all, that consequently, it's not a definition of free will, but it's trying to, it does tell us something that's a consequence that follows from this notion of free will. And the consequence is you can perform those actions which have no physical or causal restraints. So what's this talking about? This is in terms of you being able to make decisions. You're free to make decisions. The causal laws of nature aren't causing you to make any particular decision. You are making your decisions. So that's what's captured here in these first two sentences. Third sentence, according to our laws and our laws here. All right, now talking about the laws of nature, our laws, the ones that we make in our law books, we will not be punished for those actions guaranteed by our freedoms. Well, what sort of freedoms do you have? You know, this basic 10, you know, Bill of Rights sort of thing happening here. You know, you're free to, you have freedom of speech, you have freedom of assembly. So you shouldn't go to jail if you speak out, right? That kind of freedom. Fourth sentence, I can freely will to smash random car windshield. So this is this idea that I can decide, these laws of nature are making me, I can decide to smash random car windshields. Therefore I should not be punished for smashing windshields. Hold on a second. I said that's where the conclusion went weird. Well, where's punishment mentioned? Punishment is mentioned in that sentence about our laws, you know, our freedoms, like the Bill of Rights sort of freedoms, and smashing windshields is mentioned in the sentence about your free will. Well, we don't have a vague definition here because I don't really have much of a definition at all. But it sure looks like we got two different uses of the term, two different uses of the term. So is it will? So will is vague? No, will's not vague. Is will ambiguous? Is will being used in two different ways? It's not the will that's being used ambiguously. That's not the will that's used ambiguously. Now there's punish of a vague or ambiguous, right? That's not what's how they're vague or ambiguous. Punishment isn't really defined at all. And we don't get something wonky happening with punishment. Rather it's free. When we're talking about free, freedoms and free will. Well, is freedom vague? No, it's not vagueness. That's the problem. Remember, we've got free in the sense of I am able to causally determine my decisions versus here's what I'm allowed to do under the law. Well, those are two different definitions, two different uses of the term free. So it's not vagueness, it's ambiguity. Well, that was a bit of a workout. You know, definitions like I said that the basic heat of understanding that doesn't mean they're simple. You have to put a lot of work into them. So what we looked at, we looked at rules for defining. We looked at kinds of definitions and we've seen a couple of examples. Seen a couple of exercises. Don't be afraid, right? Don't simply brush off these definitions, but don't be afraid. Dive in, get your feet wet and try to understand what it means to comprehend the term but what it means to provide a definite for a definite. So I hope you enjoyed this. I'll see you next time. Keep thinking.