Concepts and Conditions

Core 105

O’Rourke

I.                   Concepts and Conditions

In a class on monsters, you have a right to expect that we will clarify the meaning of the term, ‘monster’.  You have heard the mantra, “Define your terms.”  A good mantra, this, and we will proceed in its spirit.  Thus, our early goal is to figure out what can be said about the meaning of the term, ‘monster,’ so that we can all be sure that we are talking about the same thing when we use it.

We will have identified the meaning of the term ‘monster’ when we understand the concept monster, since the concept simply is the meaning.  But what is it to understand a concept?   This is a difficult question, but we can make some progress toward answering it.  We can agree that unless you are able to apply a concept with consistent success to its instances (and refrain from applying it to things that aren’t instances), then you likely do not understand the concept.  Failure to apply the concept correctly in the world is compelling evidence that you don’t understand it.  This suggests that consistent success at applying it is evidence that you do understand it, and this is our first step. 

Thus, consistently correct application of a concept is good evidence that one understands it.  (Note, though, that it isn’t proof, since one could get lucky, nor is it required, since one could be unlucky.)   How do we get to the point where we can correctly apply a concept with consistency?  One way is to identify conditions of the world that are associated with instances of the concept.  If you know the conditions that a thing must meet to count as an instance of the concept, then you have what you need to apply it—you have a conceptual recipe, so to speak. 

In class, we have worked on developing a list of conditions that have been extracted from consideration of things we take to be monsters.  This is a good strategy—start with things that are paradigmatic instances of the concept in question and try to identify traits or characteristics they have in common, or alternatively, traits or characteristics that guarantee them as instances.  Some trait X becomes a condition when you say that the one condition on being an instance of the concept is that something must be an X thing.  Thus, in the case of monsters, we note that some monsters have the characteristic of being dangerous, and so we can say that one condition on being a monster is that it be dangerous.

Not all conditions associated with a concept are the same.  There are two distinctions that matter here.  Some are necessary, which is to say that everything that counts as an instance of the concept must satisfy the condition, while some are merely common.  If something in the world lacks a necessary condition associated with concept C, then it is not a C thing; however, it can lack a common condition associated with concept C and still be a C thing.  The second distinction also starts with necessary conditions, but contrasts them with sufficient conditions.  If something satisfies a sufficient condition associated with concept C, then it is a C thing.  Note that sufficient conditions needn’t be necessary—a sufficient condition on being a Miami Heat is that you are Shaquille O’Neal, but you don’t have to be Shaq to be a Heat.  Note also that sufficient conditions don’t need to be common conditions.

Now, the trick to understanding a concept is coming to identify enough conditions associated with that concept so that you are able to recognize its instances with consistent success.  If you identify a set of conditions that are each necessary and, together, are sufficient, then you have yourself a definition of the concept.  However, understanding doesn’t require knowing the definition, no matter what the mantra said above.  In some cases, there just may not be an adequate definition.  This may very well be the case with monster.  Furthermore, what we take to be monstrous differs from one person to the next, and it doesn’t seem like it makes sense to say that at most one of us could be right.  Indeed, what counts as a monster seems to be a very personal thing. 

So, the executive summary is this:

1.                   Knowing the meaning of ‘monster’ is to understand the concept monster.

2.                   To understand the concept monster, you must be able to apply it correctly with systematic success.

3.                   To apply it correctly, you need to know conditions that qualify a thing as an instance of the concept when they are satisfied by it.  (These could be necessary, sufficient, or common conditions.)

4.                   You need to know enough of these concepts to guide you, even if they don’t form a definition of it.