Fallacies of definition: Encyclopedia II - Fallacies of definition - Circularity

Fallacies of definition - Circularity

There is a general name for the first two sorts of error: circular definition. A circular definition is somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about.

Fallacies of definition - Defining with a synonym

A definition is no good if it simply gives a one-word synonym. For example, suppose we define the word "virtue"—an important word in ethics—just using the word "excellence." It might be perfectly true that all virtues are excellences and all excellences are virtues (that was perhaps an ancient Greek view; see arete), but the word "excellence" by itself is not a good definition of "virtue" in philosophy. One can always simply ask, "But what does 'excellence' mean?" Surely, if one has a basic confusion about what "virtue" means, then one will also have a basic philosophical confusion about what "excellence" means. So it will not do to define one simply by stating the other.

Fallacies of definition - Defining with a near synonym

A definition is no good if it uses a very near synonym in the definition. For example, suppose we define 'beautiful' as 'possessing aesthetic value'. The words 'beautiful' and 'aesthetic' are very nearly the same in meaning; so if anyone is deeply confused or curious about beauty, then he is of course going to be confused or curious about the aesthetic. The question is what general characteristics are possessed by all beautiful objects, or all objects that have aesthetic value.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Circularity", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki