A person cannot be accurately described.
By
Elihu
on August 21, 2008
All descriptions will always be crude approximations, that will omit certain important aspects or misrepresent others. (Which isn't to say we shouldn't try to describe or understand ourselves or others -- a crude approximation is better than a total lack of understanding.)
I realize this claim is a bit ambiguous as it doesn't specify whether an accurate description must include all of a person's physical body, personality, and history (or even perhaps their future).
For the purposes of this claim, I will assume that a person is accurately described by their physical existence within the universe, and that we will ignore that case.
Agreed
9
6
60.0% 40.0%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Discussion (6)
i too recently made a very similar claim.
Yes, there is a link to your claim under the heading "This claim was inspired by".
I suspect that the person who created this claim thought that your claim was overly specific. I did.
What is the difference between the intent of your claim, and this claim as it is written?
I totally disagree:
Example 1.
Cobra Baghdad is a pompous asshole.
Example 2.
George W. Bush is a blithering incompetent.
You can't necessarily give a fully comprehensive description, but you can give an accurate one. Accuracy doesn't require precision.
Cobra, you've a point but your using those terms as in relation to the measurement of quantifiable stuff which descriptions, like your examples, are often not so. Also, I really doubt example 1 is literally accurate.
SSS--Let's be honest, we've met in the real world, you know I'm a pompous asshole. It's part of my (if I can be said to have one) charm, but it's true.
My point here is that, I feel like this entire thread of claims is based on the (I feel) spurious assumption that attempting to describe people is inherently doomed to failure. I don't think that's the case. It also seems based on a presumption that abstract concepts that don't directly translate into actions are necessary in a definition of a person.
They may be important in a self definition of a person. I, however, think that this supposition is nonsense. I really believe that the only meaningful measure of a person is the things which they have done, and, therefore, while I may not be able to come up with a comprehensive definition of a person, I can come up with one which is sufficient for my needs.
I further feel that everyone does this, they may not admit that they do, but they do it.
I, thus, stand by my methodology in discussing this particular matter.
Claims inspired by this comment
Some things that are doomed to failure (or at least incomplete success) are still worth doing.The accurate physical description of a person is not impossible, as hinted by your claim, simply (extremely) improbable. In regards to the definition of a person (as opposed to his or her physical description) I agree with the above poster.