Skip to main content

Clear, Obscure, Distinct, and Confused Ideas and How They Relate to Definitions

I wanted to capture the meaning of these terms because they are very important in dealing with definitions.  The terms have a formal place in logic, and are often encountered in the traditional literature.  Yet it is also fair to say that we probably all use these terms (or their synonyms) quite frequently in analytical work.  Having a good idea of what they actually mean makes them, I think, more useful tools for us.

To get understandable definitions, I have used two sources: [1] C.S. Peirce's essay "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1879); and [2] Leibnitz's tract "Reflections Touching Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas" (1684).  This is because each source, in my opinion, is understandable for only two of the terms.  

Here we go.
  • Clear: A clear idea is one which is so apprehended that it will be recognized wherever it is met with, and so that no other will be mistaken for it. [1]
  • Obscure: A notion is obscure when it is not sufficient to enable us to recognize the thing which it represents: - when, for example, I remember some flower of animal which I have formerly seen but this remembrance is not sufficient to enable me to recognize its image or to discriminate it from others which resemble it. [2]
So ideas can be clear or obscure.  If an idea is obscure, we can go no further.  However, if an idea is clear, then it can be either distinct or confused. 
  • Distinct: A distinct idea is one that contains nothing that is not clear.  This is technical language; by the contents [from the word "contains"] of an idea logicians understand whatever is contained in its definition.  So that an idea is distinctly apprehended according to them when we can give a precise definition of it in abstract terms. [1]
  • Confused:  It [an idea] is confused when we are not able to enumerate marks sufficient to discriminate the thing from others [i.e. form a definition of it], although it may in reality have such marks and requisites into which its notion may be resolved...Thus [for example] we cannot explain to the blind what red is [even though it is clear idea]...In like manner we see that painters and other artists discern well enough what is well or ill done; but often are not able to give a reason for their judgement, and reply to those that inquire what it is that displeases them in the work, that there is something, they know not what, wanting. [2] 
Leibnitz took up the what Descartes had earlier said about clear and distinct ideas, but which Descartes and his followers had never been able to clarify.

I suppose we can summarize by saying an idea is clear when we can recognize it the next time we encounter it, and distinct when we have a good enough definition of it such that we can distinguish it from all other concepts. 

We can see that "clear" and "obscure" apply to ideas, but "distinct" and "confused" really only apply to definitions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Abstraction in Definitions of Data Objects

I think there is a major problem in not being able to understand and work with different levels of abstraction.  By "abstraction" in this sense I mean one concept system that somehow describes or defines (not merely relates to) another concept system.  I think this is a big problem for definitions in data models. Let us take an example in a retail business such as mortgage banking: Customer Name.  Customer Name exists in the business.  They use it all the time.  Maybe it is sometimes called Borrower Name, but the concept is the same.  This is the Level 1 abstraction. Now let us think of data values in a column in a table that holds Customer Name.  These data values are stored as a code of 1's and 0's.  Of course these bits are rendered into something we can read.  However, this is not the same as the Customer Name in the business.  I worked for a place where they prefixed the name of anyone who had recently left with "ZZZ"....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Humpty-Dumpty Principle in Definitions

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...
Post a Comment
Read more