I here posit an opinion that I will always stand by, an opinion on the imperfection of human knowledge: the abstruseness
of our definitions. Now, coming to
definition, there is are only two ways in which it can be done: saying what an object is according to its constituents, compositions: textures, structures,...; and enumeration of all that which an object is not, definition by contradiction, highlighting of negations: if all that which an object is not is given then it becomes easier to say what an object is. Dictionary definitions are of the first type: a definition of objects in terms of others but this does not in any way simplify our
understanding. You will find that if a word is defined in terms of other words then a person is forced into the ramification of seeking further an understanding of the other words used: this forces us into the realms of inchoate obumbration. We are forced to know about objects, that is, their meaning through the esoteric fumes of others which may still be hidden from our understanding. Don''t you think then it is best to define an object as only being itself, or through such simplified terms to pellucidate our understanding of things? It will be easily understood that the current method of definition is a compedium which can only be used by those who at least have attained an elementary form of education. I don''t seek here the delugences of apostasy but only favour a simplification that will speed the rate of development. It can be noted that if people are taught in a language they easily understand they the rate at which they acquire knowledge will be faster. I don''t mean this to be a commen