due in 8 hours........ must have done in 8 hours no late work  do the following:   based on philosophy   The Recipe (Instructions): Give the analytical definition of "mayonnaise."  It's easier than you might think, but search the Internet! Describe the latitude in the types of products that can count as mayonnaise in light of this analysis of what mayonnaise is.  In doing this, use the language of necessary and sufficient conditions .  Give examples if you can. (To be clear, I am assessing for whether you understand the role that necessary conditions, and sufficient conditions, play in the role of giving an analysis of a definiendum.) Create your own  neologism and write it into your response .  Do  not include its definition.  A fun way to do this is to think in terms of portmanteaus .  Portmanteaus are single words that are the result of fusing portions of two others.  For example (this is my example, so make up your own - we want 100% individual originality here!), consider a  shelt .   While you won't be giving us the definition of your own neologism right away, I will spill the beans - metaphorically speaking - about what I mean by mine:  It's a really thick belt that I am also able to use to provide me with shade.  So:  shade + belt = shelt.  There's my neologism!  (That took about 10 seconds to come up with.  Do you think I could market these?!) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of stipulative definitions , and link this discussion to your own neologism. ___________________________________________________________________________________ information that can be helpful   Analytical definitions are the definitions most commonly prized by mathematicians and Western philosophers and scientists.  The reason is that these definitions state the necessary and sufficient conditions (Links to an external site.) for the definiendum – that is, they do precisely what ostensive definitions inherently fail to do.  In the West, their strength has often been thought to be that if you have given a genuine analytical definition of a concept, then by the same token, you guarantee genuine understanding of the definiendum.  In other words, to successfully analyze a concept, is (at least by Western standards) to have knowledge of the definiendum.  Ask yourself if knowing something is always a matter of “breaking a thing down” into its parts.  ( For skepticism about this so-called "Western Assumption," see Australian philosopher Frank Jackson's article, "The Qualia Problem." The weaknesses of such definitions are that they are extraordinarily hard to arrive at, and even if you do, one might wonder how you would  know  that you had done so!  (John Rawls, a well-known political philosopher, tried to give an analysis of justice in his famous book published in 1971,  A Theory of Justice (Links to an external site.) .   Check out the link to see how many pages it took him to do so!)  This idea, or ideal, of analysis is manifest in the .

1. due in 8 hours........ must have done in 8 hours no late work
do the following: based on philosophy
The Recipe (Instructions):
Give the
analytical
definition of "mayonnaise." It's easier than you might think,
but search the Internet!
Describe the latitude in the types of products that can count as
mayonnaise in light of this analysis of what mayonnaise is. In
doing this, use the language of
necessary and sufficient conditions
. Give examples if you can. (To be clear, I am assessing for
whether you understand the role that necessary conditions, and
sufficient conditions, play in the role of giving an analysis of a
definiendum.)
Create your own
neologism
and write it into your response
.
Do
not
include its definition. A fun way to do this is to think in terms
of
portmanteaus
. Portmanteaus are single words that are the result of fusing
portions of two others. For example (this is my example, so
make up your own - we want 100% individual originality here!),

2. consider a
shelt
.
While you won't be giving us the definition of your own
neologism right away, I will spill the beans - metaphorically
speaking - about what I mean by mine: It's a really thick belt
that I am also able to use to provide me with shade. So: shade
+ belt = shelt. There's my neologism! (That took about 10
seconds to come up with. Do you think I could market these?!)
Explain the strengths and weaknesses of
stipulative definitions
, and link this discussion to your own neologism.
_____________________________________________________
______________________________
information that can be helpful
Analytical definitions are the definitions most commonly
prized by mathematicians and Western philosophers and
scientists. The reason is that these definitions state the
necessary and sufficient conditions (Links to an external site.)
for the definiendum – that is, they do precisely what ostensive
definitions inherently fail to do. In the West, their strength has
often been thought to be that if you have given a genuine
analytical definition of a concept, then by the same token, you
guarantee genuine understanding of the definiendum. In other
words, to successfully analyze a concept, is (at least by Western
standards) to have knowledge of the definiendum. Ask yourself
if knowing something is always a matter of “breaking a thing
down” into its parts. (
For skepticism about this so-called "Western Assumption," see
Australian philosopher Frank Jackson's article, "The Qualia

3. Problem."
The weaknesses of such definitions are that they are
extraordinarily hard to arrive at, and even if you do, one might
wonder how you would
know
that you had done so! (John Rawls, a well-known political
philosopher, tried to give an analysis of justice in his famous
book published in 1971,
A Theory of Justice (Links to an external site.)
.
Check out the link to see how many pages it took him to do
so!)
This idea, or ideal, of analysis is manifest in the general method
of science. Those practices attempt to solve problems by
“breaking them down” into their constituent parts, and then
breaking the constituent parts down into
their
constituents, and so on and so forth, until no more division is
possible. By clearly understanding each “part” (whether
abstract or physical in nature), the idea is that if you can isolate
precisely what it takes to
be
such a part, then there is no way of confusing it with any
other
part, and there is likewise nothing left to say about it in
isolation.
This is tantamount to arriving at the
essence
(Links to an external site.)
of the definiendum. A statement of the essence of something
answers the question: “What is it that makes this thing the thing
that it is, and nothing other than that?” If you know the answer
to this question, of any given thing, could you possibly say any

4. more about it, or would that constitute certain knowledge of
what that thing is?
Stipulative definitions are definitions that amount either to
coinages of new words (called
neologisms
(Links to an external site.)
), or that define familiar words in ways so different from
ordinary usage, that they might almost appear to be new words
(although strictly speaking, their meaning is what is new, rather
than they themselves). Take the word ‘mouse’. Today we
associate this word with external devices used to move the
cursor to various locations on a computer monitor. A
generation or so ago this would have been thought insane (and
unmarketable)! The word ‘mouse’, used in this way, was then
stipulated (by Steven Jobs?) to refer to this device, sometime in
the nineteen-eighties, I believe. In a rather similar vein, in
philosophy programs at colleges, we stipulate that ‘validity’
means the property possessed by those arguments in which, if
the premises are all assumed to be true, then the conclusion
must be true as well. Notice how wildly different this usage of
the words ‘valid’ and ‘validity’ is from everyday usage! Now,
philosophers don’t regard their definition as stipulative,
although it is recognized by them to deviate from general social
usage. Therefore, we might say that whether or not a given
definition is stipulative, is to some degree a matter determined
by the exclusiveness of the group using it.
Does the relative exclusiveness constitute a weakness of
stipulative definitions? Actually, it may be
both
the strength
or
the weakness of stipulative definitions.

5. This requires an explanation: On the one hand, by saying
exactly how you are using a word, you are assisting your
interlocutor
(conversation partner) in following along with whatever you
are discussing. On the other hand, if your goal is to make a
clear case for something by appealing to a special definition
you apply to a term, then you aren’t going to be terribly
successful making your case in situations where your meaning
is highly idiosyncratic.
Ostensive definitions are definitions by example. An example
of such definitions that is often used in Introduction to
Philosophy courses is a quote from Euthyphro, an acquaintance
of Socrates, who said: “Piety is what I am doing, namely
prosecuting a wrongdoer.” Notice that this is an example of an
intangible or abstract idea – piety. Ostensive definitions are not
limited to such contexts, of course: I could very easily explain
the meaning of the word ‘cup’ by pointing to a cup, and that too
would then be functioning as an ostensive definition. The
strength of such definitions is that they give the inquirer a
literal example of the definiendum, and one example is usually
– but not always – better than none. Moreover, there are
contexts in which such a definition is in fact the
most
desirable kind, since there are some contexts in which knowing
quickly what something means, is the surest way of
accomplishing the task at hand. Can you think of one such
context?
There is a very important weakness associated with ostensive
definitions, however: ostensive definitions do not tell us what
features of a definiendum are the ones that are relevant for the
example’s inclusion in the class of objects (or abstract ideas)

6. being defined. Because of this, it is theoretically possible to
include items in the definiendum class, which should be kept
out of it; and it is likewise possible to allow into the class,
items which should be kept out. Below is an example that
illustrates this weakness.
Suppose Xylo [pronounced like “sigh-low,” only with an initial
“z” sound] is from the planet Quantum, and Xylo has just
recently acquired a fairly good grasp of English and of
Earthling cultures. Somehow, however, until today Xylo has
never before heard the word ‘cup’. So Xylo asks you, “What is
a cup?” and, quite reasonably, you show Xylo a cup and hope he
quickly grasps the definition of a cup. The next day, however,
Xylo approaches you with a bag and says, “Thank you for
teaching me the meaning of the word ‘cup’. I too, now, have a
cup. Here is my cup,” and Xylo thereupon holds up his bag for
you to inspect. What has gone awry? To complicate matters
more, suppose that you point to a cup and Xylo says, “But that
cannot be a cup.” Why might Xylo do this? Think hard about
the limitation of ostensive definitions in order to answer these
two questions. One tidy way of summarizing the weakness of
ostensive definitions is to say that they fail to state either the
necessary or the sufficient conditions for inclusion in the
definiendum class.