Is a hotdog a sandwich?
This jokey, pseudo-philosophical question exemplifies a confusion which lies at the heart of philosophy.
There are two ways to approach the question. One is to consult everyday usage: hotdogs are not commonly called sandwiches, and so therefore hotdogs are not sandwiches.
However, this feels too ad-hoc to philosophy types, who naturally take the second approach. First, define what a sandwich is. Then, determine if this definition is inclusive of hotdogs. The point of contention is how exactly to define a sandwich, since once a definition is arrived at, applying it to hotdogs is easy. As a first stab, you might define a sandwich as any or all of meat, cheese, and vegetables between two pieces of bread. But then, someone might counter, subs are called sub sandwiches, and they use one piece of bread. So then, sandwiches are meat, cheese, and/or vegetables wrapped in bread. But following complaints from the burritos-and-wraps-are-not-sandwiches crowed. you might amend to meat, cheese, and/or vegetables partially wrapped in bread. With this definition in hand, you can soundly conclude that hotdogs, contrary to popular opinion, are in fact sandwiches.
While this second approach might feel more logical and rigorous, this whole procedure is wrong. The problem is that the argument consults usage to arrive at a definition, then uses the definition to arrive at a conclusion contrary to usage. This cannot be legitimately done, because usage is the only source which informs you what a sandwich is. There is no trans-linguistic reality, no platonic essence of sandwiches which you can consult. Definitions can only describe, not prescribe, and you can't get more out of them than the usage they arise from. If your definition of sandwich is contrary to usage, then it is, by definition, wrong.
Nouns pick out categories. There is always at least some logic to them, if the same noun haphazardly selected sandwiches, deserts which go well with coffee, and baseball cards, it wouldn't be of much use. But, words are under no obligation whatsoever to have strict, logically consistent definitions. There may be no definition which perfectly includes and excludes every member of "sandwich", or of there is one, no one is thinking of it as they use the word. Words are organic things, and have fuzzy boundaries, and our minds are well constituted to deal with them as such. We happily use the word sandwich, never mistakenly using the word with hotdogs.
I call such questions which presume an trans-linguistic reality where there is none, "hotdog questions". I think this confusion pervades philosophy. Whenever a "what is" question is asked, I am always worried by the thought "Is this a hotdog question?". "What is identity?" may be one.
There are two ways to approach the question. One is to consult everyday usage: hotdogs are not commonly called sandwiches, and so therefore hotdogs are not sandwiches.
However, this feels too ad-hoc to philosophy types, who naturally take the second approach. First, define what a sandwich is. Then, determine if this definition is inclusive of hotdogs. The point of contention is how exactly to define a sandwich, since once a definition is arrived at, applying it to hotdogs is easy. As a first stab, you might define a sandwich as any or all of meat, cheese, and vegetables between two pieces of bread. But then, someone might counter, subs are called sub sandwiches, and they use one piece of bread. So then, sandwiches are meat, cheese, and/or vegetables wrapped in bread. But following complaints from the burritos-and-wraps-are-not-sandwiches crowed. you might amend to meat, cheese, and/or vegetables partially wrapped in bread. With this definition in hand, you can soundly conclude that hotdogs, contrary to popular opinion, are in fact sandwiches.
While this second approach might feel more logical and rigorous, this whole procedure is wrong. The problem is that the argument consults usage to arrive at a definition, then uses the definition to arrive at a conclusion contrary to usage. This cannot be legitimately done, because usage is the only source which informs you what a sandwich is. There is no trans-linguistic reality, no platonic essence of sandwiches which you can consult. Definitions can only describe, not prescribe, and you can't get more out of them than the usage they arise from. If your definition of sandwich is contrary to usage, then it is, by definition, wrong.
Nouns pick out categories. There is always at least some logic to them, if the same noun haphazardly selected sandwiches, deserts which go well with coffee, and baseball cards, it wouldn't be of much use. But, words are under no obligation whatsoever to have strict, logically consistent definitions. There may be no definition which perfectly includes and excludes every member of "sandwich", or of there is one, no one is thinking of it as they use the word. Words are organic things, and have fuzzy boundaries, and our minds are well constituted to deal with them as such. We happily use the word sandwich, never mistakenly using the word with hotdogs.
I call such questions which presume an trans-linguistic reality where there is none, "hotdog questions". I think this confusion pervades philosophy. Whenever a "what is" question is asked, I am always worried by the thought "Is this a hotdog question?". "What is identity?" may be one.
Comments (39)
Wow! That came out of nowhere. :yum: And to think some say that philosophers only look backward.
:clap:
Excellent OP !
I remember when I used to take hotdog questions too seriously. The pragmatists and others help me see the game in the new light.
You've discovered a perfect parody of bad philosophy, I think.
They're not sandwiches. In fact, a hotdog inside a bun is similar to falafel inside a pita bread. They're called by their names in isolation of the bread that accompanies them. So, if you order two hotdogs, you're gonna get two buns with a hotdog inside each. The same with falafel.
Another hint is that a sandwich is two slices of bread with things in-between. Buns aren't used for sandwiches (no one is going to arrest you for calling it a sandwich), but for holding the thing which you ordered.
Maybe not in the US but they are in other parts of the world. So a sandwich is not a sandwich which is not sandwich.
Also @hypericin, wraps and burritos aren't bread.
In any case, philosophers do make definitions when they offer persuasive definitions that deviate from actual use in order to clarify or delineate an idea. This is usually the whole point of the question "what is...?"
Perhaps we can agree that good philosophers realize that they are clarifying or adjusting a concept as such, while not-so-good philosophers assume from the mere grammar of the question that a yes-or-no one-bit answer already exists and needs only be 'computed' metalogiphysically.
:snicker:
:up:
Do you watch Mythical Kitchen/listen to their podcast?
Quoting Pie
He may have got the answer wrong but I give him credit for raising a question that is still intriguing us in almost its original form two millenia later. Austin's 'first-water, ground floor' mistakes, which it's no disgrace to have made.
Another source is our own prescription. "It's called a sandwich but it does not deserve the name." As if the so-called sandwich is descriptively or even morally defective. There is a trans-linguistic reality exactly when there is a prescriptive reality: the world of what ought and ought not to be, distinct from the world of what is. For example, democracy is not just whatever anyone chooses to call democracy. Otherwise any old tyranny will qualify. Usage is something, but not everything. Don't know why I've decided to stick up for Platonism in this thread, a position that is neither fashionable nor sustainable. But heck, someone's got to do it. If they don't explicitly, it'll only come sneaking in by the back door.
But neither is there any historical certainty about past usage, or even about uses of a word on particular occasions. (See inscrutability of reference.)
Understanding how language works on such shaky ground is a perfectly chompable problem.
Sure, especially given the inscrutability and all.
Quoting hypericin
But then how could that ever be a mistake?
Is this a chair problem?
:up:
Agreed. This generation stands on those that came before, and it's not clear that such 'mistakes' or partial insights could or should have been avoided.
My father insists that Darts isn't a sport. If I ask him why, he argues that when playing a sport you need to take a shower afterwards. On further questioning, he admits that the purpose of his narrower definition of "sport" is to devalue the achievements of non-athletes.
I take you to be saying something like : just because we do talk this way doesn't mean we should.
Quoting Cuthbert
A valid move indeed, and maybe much of philosophy is just this kind of statement.
I recall critics of OLP worrying that it could be interpreted as one big naturalistic fallacy. Personally I don't think @hypericin intended such a thing.
Well said. I suppose they can be more or less objective, but surely they are often motivated, satirical, polemical.
Good point. To me the point is something like current usage, and I see rationality as related to sociality, politeness, good sportsmanship. It's 'unreasonable' to apply concepts differently than others, at least without justification. The norms aren't generally explicit or exact, but computers can 'learn' them well enough to translate simpler texts.
In my experience of fathers that means he's forgotten about the loan. Otherwise he would be insisting on repayment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich
Half a bun is not a slice of bread, and neither a frankfurter nor a burger is a slice of meat. Sandwiches are eaten by the aristocracy, and burgers, hot-dogs, chip butties, and doughnuts are peasant food.
Essences can be declared - what else is a patent?
:vomit: Worst ever! Here's some carbohydrates with some more carbohydrates. Also it doesn't taste like anything.
Your logic is valid but this premise makes it unsound.
It's any salad with a dressing of disdain from the chips 'n' pies 'n' beans 'n' potato crisp sandwich brigade, of whom I am a member.
You can have a smaller or larger slice of the pie, but when it gets to half the pie and beyond, you basically have the pie, minus a slice or two. A slice has to have 2 cut sides and the slice between them.
Quoting Benkei I don't know, I'm only a peasant. I see you're familiar with lines of coke though.
Quoting Cuthbert
They're so weird aren't they. Not only do they insist on dressing for dinner, they have to have the dinner dress too.
It's the drizzling I find so odd. Drizzle is what we used to get when it wasn't quite raining. Now it goes on food.
If buns were pies, rather than small loafs, I'd admit defeat here.
*loaves?
So I was in France, speaking broken French, trying to buy a baguette, and the cashier asked me something that was far beyond the standard exchange one would expect in such a purchase, so I just nodded agreeably, having no idea what she was saying, but she kept insisting upon a better answer, so I apologized, telling her I didn't understand her, that I spoke English. The lady behind me told me I was being asked if it would be ok if the cashier bent the baguette in half to fit it in the bag, and then I agreed, although I thought that was an odd thing to do and I would likely have been confused had I been asked that same thing in English in America. An old man behind me then lectured me on the requirement that I speak only French when in France.
That's a story about bread, baguettes, and context, where "I don't understand" means "I don't care about your culture." I mean, how was I supposed to decipher "can I bend your bread in half" from the few words I understood in the context I described?
Next time I'll communicate better by wearing my bright white tennis shoes, my baseball cap, and my cargo shorts so they won't confuse me for being French.
There is no way they would have thought you were French; that was them publicly humiliating you for having the temerity to be in France and not speak French. Next time go to Spain. It is of course sacrilege to bend a bagutte, or put it in a bag, but since it sounds like some supermarket and not a proper boulangerie, it wouldn't have been a real baguette anyway, and carrying a folded baguette about town would be a further humiliation akin to having the scarlet letter 'A' embroidered on your dress.
How did you know what my dress looked like? Were you the old man lecturing me?
.