I refuse to fall for a trap set by someone who mistakenly believes that definitions comprised of inherently finite and limited language can ever encapsulate the complexity of lived lives.
This is one of my favourite ripostes in a long time. A deliciously mind-bending paradox inviting the total collapse of language itself. Unintentionally gorgeous.
Books? Inherently finite and limited language that can never encapsulate the complexity of the published work.
Cats? Inherently finite and limited language that can never encapsulate the complexity of feline existence.
Definition? Inherently finite and limited language that can never encapsulate the complex relationship between signifier and signified.
Human? Totally inadequate as a descriptor in the light of the above. Better not even try.
And, despairing, language itself fades and dies...
Butler would be proud. Sapir-Whorf make a good point.