catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au wrote:
> [clip]
> > the need for distinctions between explanations and
> >definitions........? :-)
>
> [clip] I see the problem. It's not that I've
> never considered this imperative. I just disagree.
This is perhaps a major question in our exchange here. I really don't see how there can be any discussion of any realm without seeing definitions and explanations as totallly different. The distinction is essential to avoid collapsing thought into mere tautology.
There are few more disastrous errors in historical thought than in confusing a description for an explanation. Descriptions and definitions are essential to identify _what needs to be explained_. But historical thought consists in giving such explanation.
Carrol