I hope this is the right forum in which to post this question. I would so appreciate an example or two of the kind of definition we should be able to come up with by the end of invention module 4! Do we add the parts to the genus & difference somehow, or is this a different kind of definition altogether?
Jennifer F wrote: I hope this is the right forum in which to post this question. I would so appreciate an example or two of the kind of definition we should be able to come up with by the end of invention module 4! Do we add the parts to the genus & difference somehow, or is this a different kind of definition altogether? Thank you. Jennifer
The Definition by Parts is a different kind of defintion than by genus and differentia, but not "altogether." When you finish the second definition worksheet, your student will be able to tell what kind of thing something is and how it is different from other things of the same kind, and he will then be able to break the thing defined into its parts.
The naming of parts is actually a very simple way of defining, at least for concrete things. Suppose, for example, you want your student to define a bookcase.
He could say it is a genus: kind of furniture differentia: used to hold books on shelves
And then he could list parts: sides back shelves nails etc.
As an aside, some people ask where description comes in LTW. This is the first place. When we describe something we are usually naming its parts and their relations to each other.
This sort of defining does become much more difficult with abstractions, like peace or justice. What are the parts of peace? Well worth thinking about!
Now I'm going to tack another question onto this one. Since I try to integrate our studies as much as possible, I started out talking about the "parts" of the term being defined, but moved on to talking about defining by properties and accidents, as well as the difference between essential and non-essential definitions. For my oldest, this is reinforcement of her current logic studies, for the other two it's anticipatory, and none of them seemed to have difficulties with it. Is there any reason why I should not be doing this? I don't want to mess up some future lesson by throwing something in here that doesn't belong. Thanks.
There is no reason not to do what you are describing. In fact, it gives the logic a practical application that may surprise your students. LTW year 2 will use more of Aristotle's categories and other logical terms to expand the students ability to define. What you are doing gives them a head start.
