Talk:distinction without a difference
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFD[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Looks a bit SoPpy to me. --WikiTiki89 10:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- This seems to be covered by the prior knowledge test, so keep. Nothing much definition-wise to warrant its keeping, but it appears a lot in philosophy books 1 2 3 as a set phrase. Strictly speaking, as [1] points out, it's not exactly SoP because in order to draw a distinction there has to be some difference, but I don't know whether that bit of pedantry is really enough to claim idiomaticity. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that this is technical. It's just a term that has greater application among philosophers. It simply hinges on the idea, inherent in the definition of distinction, that some differences are manufactured rather than inherent, natural, or consequential. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Leaning toward keep as a set phrase. bd2412 T 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If we had some kind of significant limit of resources, this would not be kept, as it is utterly transparent if one is careful about words. However, a significant portion of the uses of "without a difference" occur with "distinction" immediately preceding and about as many with an NP headed by distinction immediately preceding. In the past I'd have taken the latter as evidence against it being a set linguistic phrase and for it being more of a conceptual association. But few accepted the argument. Rather than fight this, I'm willing to stop opposing the trend of making Wiktionary less linguistic and more conceptual if all you linguists would have it that way, no matter how wrong I believe it to be in my heart of hearts. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, even if as a
{{translation only}}. — Keφr 14:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)