I am trying to respond to a comment from a reviewer, where he/she suggests that there might be definitions which have a causal component.
Suppose I have the following totally made up definition (where x stands for some person): To be wise is to be kind and intelligent.
D1: ∀x[Property(x, wisdom) = Property(x, intelligence) ^ Property(x, kindness)]
Suppose then that I for some reason wanted to impose the additional restriction in the definiens that wisdom causes intelligence and kindness (again totally made up):
D2: ∀x[Property(x, wisdom) = Property(x, intelligence) ^ Property(x, kindness) ^ Causes(wisdom, intelligence) ^ Causes(wisdom, kindness)]
For me, definitions and causal relations seem like fundemantally different concepts, e.g. that definitions are identity relations, and that relata have to be distinct in causal relations. But, on the other hand, a definition might involve some causal assumptions, e.g. influenza is a disease with properties x, y, z, caused by a virus.
Are definitions of type D2 acceptable? Any help is greatly appreciated!