Inherently intrinsic?
July 26, 2010 1:39 PM Subscribe
Intrinsic vs. inherent: can someone explain??
I recall first being exposed to the word 'intrinsic' back in my undergrad days when I took a class on philosophy and the environment. The professor talked about the intrinsic value of things like trees and the ocean. And I think I understood what it meant in that context (things that have value simply because they are, not because they can be monetized or used to make something else....or something).
But now I seem to notice people saying and writing the word when what they want to say is 'inherent.' Is the difference in definitions of these words so slim that they can almost be used interchangebaly in some circumstances? As far as I can tell there's a difference between the two, although not much. And now the more I think about it the more confused I'm becoming.
Are these people who are over-using the word 'intrinsic' confused or am I?
The internet isn't helping me out much on this, unfortunately.
I recall first being exposed to the word 'intrinsic' back in my undergrad days when I took a class on philosophy and the environment. The professor talked about the intrinsic value of things like trees and the ocean. And I think I understood what it meant in that context (things that have value simply because they are, not because they can be monetized or used to make something else....or something).
But now I seem to notice people saying and writing the word when what they want to say is 'inherent.' Is the difference in definitions of these words so slim that they can almost be used interchangebaly in some circumstances? As far as I can tell there's a difference between the two, although not much. And now the more I think about it the more confused I'm becoming.
Are these people who are over-using the word 'intrinsic' confused or am I?
The internet isn't helping me out much on this, unfortunately.
"Intrinsic" has slightly more "natural" or physical connotations than "inherent" - I'd probably be more apt to describe granite as having "intrinsic strength" whereas I'd use inherent for, say, "The American electoral system is inherently biased toward only having two meaningful parties." But they are very close synonyms and I'm not even sure I can think of a circumstance in which either would seem wrong if substituted for the other.
Important note: I don't work in law, or engineering, or medicine, or any other field where either word is used as a term of art; I'm speaking entirely of their use in everyday English.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:46 PM on July 26, 2010 [2 favorites]
Important note: I don't work in law, or engineering, or medicine, or any other field where either word is used as a term of art; I'm speaking entirely of their use in everyday English.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:46 PM on July 26, 2010 [2 favorites]
In the context of ethics, this bit from the wikipedia sheds a little bit of light:
Some philosophers think goods have to create desirable mental states also say that goods are experiences of self-aware beings. These philosophers often distinguish the desirable experience, which they call an intrinsic good, from the things in the world that seem to cause the experience, which they call inherent goods.
For instance, the example lifestance of Waffleism, accepting waffle eating as the end-in-itself, a waffle is the inherent good.
posted by jquinby at 1:50 PM on July 26, 2010
Some philosophers think goods have to create desirable mental states also say that goods are experiences of self-aware beings. These philosophers often distinguish the desirable experience, which they call an intrinsic good, from the things in the world that seem to cause the experience, which they call inherent goods.
For instance, the example lifestance of Waffleism, accepting waffle eating as the end-in-itself, a waffle is the inherent good.
posted by jquinby at 1:50 PM on July 26, 2010
Many people use these two words interchangeably, which generally suits whatever communicative purpose they need. There are differences between them, however subtle. It's a slight matter of aspect or perspective or deixis, which normally doesn't matter. Much like using begin vs. start or under vs. below, or lay vs. place vs. set, and on and on. At the same time as the meanings of the individuals of these word dyads and triads are changing, there are some colloquialisms that persist...these are the collocates (the words that tend to pair more often with one member of the set and not the other member(s)). For example, a quick corpus search on COCA reveals that inherent collates most often with 'problems' and 'dangers' (those two words showing up at the top), and intrinsic collocates most often with 'motivation', 'value', and 'worth'.
posted by iamkimiam at 1:53 PM on July 26, 2010
posted by iamkimiam at 1:53 PM on July 26, 2010
Intrinsic is an integral part of something, inherent is an aspect inborn.
posted by watercarrier at 1:55 PM on July 26, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by watercarrier at 1:55 PM on July 26, 2010 [5 favorites]
Is the difference in definitions of these words so slim that they can almost be used interchangebaly in some circumstances?
Yes, certainly "in some circumstances." In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any case where you couldn't use them interchangeably.
Despite some of the comments saying one is more "natural" than the other, I don't even see a shade of a difference: intrinsic means inherent, and vice versa. (The only difference I see is that "intrinsic" is more elegantly contrasted with its antonym, "extrinsic.")
If there is a shade of meaning, it's slight enough that it's not worth being annoyed when someone uses "intrinsic" where you would have used "inherent" or vice versa.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:00 PM on July 26, 2010
Yes, certainly "in some circumstances." In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any case where you couldn't use them interchangeably.
Despite some of the comments saying one is more "natural" than the other, I don't even see a shade of a difference: intrinsic means inherent, and vice versa. (The only difference I see is that "intrinsic" is more elegantly contrasted with its antonym, "extrinsic.")
If there is a shade of meaning, it's slight enough that it's not worth being annoyed when someone uses "intrinsic" where you would have used "inherent" or vice versa.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:00 PM on July 26, 2010
I would say they are pretty much interchangeable when I use them.
For me intrinsic has more of a connotation of a quality that is in some way inside or attached to the subject. So bleach is intrinsically good at killing germs, it has that property as part of its makeup. Whereas inherent to me can mean more of a quality that logically follows from the attributes of the subject. Pure nitroglycerin is inherently dangerous to handle because it is highly unstable. It would still make sense if the two terms were swapped in those examples, but to me at least the ones I used fit better, so although they are interchangeable to me I would still purposely use one over the other in certain circumstances.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:05 PM on July 26, 2010
For me intrinsic has more of a connotation of a quality that is in some way inside or attached to the subject. So bleach is intrinsically good at killing germs, it has that property as part of its makeup. Whereas inherent to me can mean more of a quality that logically follows from the attributes of the subject. Pure nitroglycerin is inherently dangerous to handle because it is highly unstable. It would still make sense if the two terms were swapped in those examples, but to me at least the ones I used fit better, so although they are interchangeable to me I would still purposely use one over the other in certain circumstances.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:05 PM on July 26, 2010
Intrinsic is an ability native to a particular object.
Inherent is an ability native to a type of objects.
You can say that Bob intrinsically grows a beard.
You can also say that male humans inherently grow beards.
You could clumsily say that male humans intrinsically grow a beard.
But you wouldn't say that Bob inherently grows a beard.
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:06 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
Inherent is an ability native to a type of objects.
You can say that Bob intrinsically grows a beard.
You can also say that male humans inherently grow beards.
You could clumsily say that male humans intrinsically grow a beard.
But you wouldn't say that Bob inherently grows a beard.
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:06 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
You can say that Bob intrinsically grows a beard.
You can also say that male humans inherently grow beards.
You could clumsily say that male humans intrinsically grow a beard.
But you wouldn't say that Bob inherently grows a beard.
See, this is a good example of what I mean when I say they're interchangeable (barring some nuance I've never been aware of). To me, all four of those sentences sound kind of clumsy -- not quite right, but not strictly wrong either. None of them seems any better or worse than any of the others. You could switch the "inherently"s and "intrinsically"s and it wouldn't make a difference to me.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2010
You can also say that male humans inherently grow beards.
You could clumsily say that male humans intrinsically grow a beard.
But you wouldn't say that Bob inherently grows a beard.
See, this is a good example of what I mean when I say they're interchangeable (barring some nuance I've never been aware of). To me, all four of those sentences sound kind of clumsy -- not quite right, but not strictly wrong either. None of them seems any better or worse than any of the others. You could switch the "inherently"s and "intrinsically"s and it wouldn't make a difference to me.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2010
Since I'm the person who said "intrinsic" earlier today, I'm going to note that I'm with burnmp3s on this one.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:13 PM on July 26, 2010
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:13 PM on July 26, 2010
I'd be more likely to use the word "intrinsic" if there was some chance that I'd also want to use the word "extrinsic."
I'd be more likely to use the word "inherent" if I thought there was some chance I'd also want to use the verb form (to inhere). (Lord, I love that verb.)
The upshot of this is that I'd be slightly more likely to use the word "intrinsic" in the context of scientific communications, whereas I'd be far more likely to use "inherent" in the context of law or critical theory.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 2:16 PM on July 26, 2010
I'd be more likely to use the word "inherent" if I thought there was some chance I'd also want to use the verb form (to inhere). (Lord, I love that verb.)
The upshot of this is that I'd be slightly more likely to use the word "intrinsic" in the context of scientific communications, whereas I'd be far more likely to use "inherent" in the context of law or critical theory.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 2:16 PM on July 26, 2010
They don't mean the same thing -
A beard is an intrinsic part of the man's face. The man inherently has the ability to grow facial hair. The difference is subtle, but in context can be perceived.
posted by watercarrier at 2:34 PM on July 26, 2010 [3 favorites]
A beard is an intrinsic part of the man's face. The man inherently has the ability to grow facial hair. The difference is subtle, but in context can be perceived.
posted by watercarrier at 2:34 PM on July 26, 2010 [3 favorites]
Agreeing that they are very very close, and indeed the Oxford English Dictionary uses each word to define the other in the senses in which they are most commonly used today. "Inherent" has its roots in the Latin haerere, "to stick to, to be fixed to"; it is a quality that is "stuck" so closely to the nature of the object it describes that we can't really imagine it without it. "Intrinsic" describes the innermost part, the essential nature.
So if I were looking for a nuance, I'd say an "intrinsic" quality is part of the innermost nature of an object, while an inherent quality is something that is necessarily entailed by that nature. But they're really really close, and I would struggle to come up with a use case outside of a discussion of medieval philosophy where I would feel uncomfortable using them interchangeably.
posted by muhonnin at 2:37 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
So if I were looking for a nuance, I'd say an "intrinsic" quality is part of the innermost nature of an object, while an inherent quality is something that is necessarily entailed by that nature. But they're really really close, and I would struggle to come up with a use case outside of a discussion of medieval philosophy where I would feel uncomfortable using them interchangeably.
posted by muhonnin at 2:37 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
And re-reading your question has actually just clarified what difference there is between the two words. Some people will assert that the ocean has an intrinsic value--that is, a value not because it is useful or pleasant to me or anyone else, but a value in itself, a value as part of its innermost nature.
Inherent in acknowledging the intrinsic value of the ocean comes the responsibility not to despoil it casually, because intrinsic value necessarily (in some philosophical worldviews) entails certain rights and responsibilities. Does that help at all?
posted by muhonnin at 2:47 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
Inherent in acknowledging the intrinsic value of the ocean comes the responsibility not to despoil it casually, because intrinsic value necessarily (in some philosophical worldviews) entails certain rights and responsibilities. Does that help at all?
posted by muhonnin at 2:47 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
A rock is intrinsicly hard.
A rock on a cliff is inherently dangerous.
A rock is inherently hard.
A rock on a cliff is intrinsicly dangerous.
I really find the second two statements to be off. Something can be inherently obvious but can it be intrinsicly obvious?
posted by zengargoyle at 3:55 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
A rock on a cliff is inherently dangerous.
A rock is inherently hard.
A rock on a cliff is intrinsicly dangerous.
I really find the second two statements to be off. Something can be inherently obvious but can it be intrinsicly obvious?
posted by zengargoyle at 3:55 PM on July 26, 2010 [1 favorite]
See also: innate
That's what's nearly synonymous with "inborn." Neither "inherent" nor "intrinsic" suggests "inborn."
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:19 PM on July 26, 2010
That's what's nearly synonymous with "inborn." Neither "inherent" nor "intrinsic" suggests "inborn."
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:19 PM on July 26, 2010
This is a great question.
I don't have the answer.
The best one I see above is that of zengargoyle, which at least seems to embody the distinction.
posted by fivesavagepalms at 4:45 PM on July 26, 2010
I don't have the answer.
The best one I see above is that of zengargoyle, which at least seems to embody the distinction.
posted by fivesavagepalms at 4:45 PM on July 26, 2010
Merriam-Webster: inherent, intrinsic.
Inherent is a synonym of one definition of intrinsic. Both mean belonging to the essential nature of something.
Intrinsic also means originating or included within something. This is the opposite of extrinsic. Inherent is not a synonym of this definition.
posted by domnit at 6:07 PM on July 26, 2010
Inherent is a synonym of one definition of intrinsic. Both mean belonging to the essential nature of something.
Intrinsic also means originating or included within something. This is the opposite of extrinsic. Inherent is not a synonym of this definition.
posted by domnit at 6:07 PM on July 26, 2010
Intrinsic also means originating or included within something. This is the opposite of extrinsic. Inherent is not a synonym of this definition.
And I think it's safe to say that's the less common definition. In other words, as far as the primary definitions, Merriam-Webster says "inherent" and "intrinsic" are exact synonyms.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:14 PM on July 26, 2010
And I think it's safe to say that's the less common definition. In other words, as far as the primary definitions, Merriam-Webster says "inherent" and "intrinsic" are exact synonyms.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:14 PM on July 26, 2010
And I think it's safe to say that's the less common definition. In other words, as far as the primary definitions, Merriam-Webster says "inherent" and "intrinsic" are exact synonyms.
I wouldn't say the second definition is less common. When using the "belonging to the essential nature" definition, there is a connotation of the origin/inclusion definition. This connotation should decide which word you use.
For example, to say that something has inherent beauty means that beauty is an essential part of it, that it is nothing without its beauty. To say that it has intrinsic beauty means all that, but also suggests that the origin of the beauty is the thing itself.
That's how I see it, anyway.
posted by domnit at 6:33 PM on July 26, 2010
I wouldn't say the second definition is less common. When using the "belonging to the essential nature" definition, there is a connotation of the origin/inclusion definition. This connotation should decide which word you use.
For example, to say that something has inherent beauty means that beauty is an essential part of it, that it is nothing without its beauty. To say that it has intrinsic beauty means all that, but also suggests that the origin of the beauty is the thing itself.
That's how I see it, anyway.
posted by domnit at 6:33 PM on July 26, 2010
I'm not going to say I'm an authority, but my understanding has been that something's intrinsic properties are part of that thing, while something's inherent properties are those that result from the intrinsic properties of that thing.
So, the sum of an object's intrinsic properties result in certain inherent properties. One type of rock may have the intrinsic quality of hardness, and as a result, it has the inherent ability to damage things.
The way I'd always remembered it was this: an object's inherent properties are inherited from its intrinsic properties.
If I'm wrong, I've certainly never been corrected. But there's always a first time.
posted by davejay at 9:47 PM on July 26, 2010
So, the sum of an object's intrinsic properties result in certain inherent properties. One type of rock may have the intrinsic quality of hardness, and as a result, it has the inherent ability to damage things.
The way I'd always remembered it was this: an object's inherent properties are inherited from its intrinsic properties.
If I'm wrong, I've certainly never been corrected. But there's always a first time.
posted by davejay at 9:47 PM on July 26, 2010
Yes, zengargoyle's examples capture the distinction. But what is it? Here's my take.
An intrinsic quality is present at all times as an essential element. It doesn't, for example, manifest itself then go away. A rock is intrinsicly hard.
An inherent quality is a potential that will almost manifest itself under the correct conditions. A rock on a cliff is inherently dangerous (provided it falls and beans you).
posted by mono blanco at 6:07 AM on July 27, 2010
An intrinsic quality is present at all times as an essential element. It doesn't, for example, manifest itself then go away. A rock is intrinsicly hard.
An inherent quality is a potential that will almost manifest itself under the correct conditions. A rock on a cliff is inherently dangerous (provided it falls and beans you).
posted by mono blanco at 6:07 AM on July 27, 2010
I will second mono blanco. To me, intrinsic implies a quality always present, but inherent implies potential. It may take an external action or the correct moment in time for that inherent quality to manifest.
posted by dhartung at 10:35 PM on July 27, 2010
posted by dhartung at 10:35 PM on July 27, 2010
I've always reasoned it as:
Inherent qualities are derived from context, intrinsic qualities exist outside of context.
Also, I buy into davejay's etymology, in that inherent properties must be inherited.
posted by abc123xyzinfinity at 9:56 PM on July 28, 2010
Inherent qualities are derived from context, intrinsic qualities exist outside of context.
Also, I buy into davejay's etymology, in that inherent properties must be inherited.
posted by abc123xyzinfinity at 9:56 PM on July 28, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Both words describe an essential element of something.
But intrinsic is also more of a natural quality to it - the element is part of its nature.
Inherent is more of an earned or extra essential element.
You might say that Dale Earnhardt intrinsically grew hair.
But he had an inherent ability to drive a car.
(or, at least, that is how the words seem to me)
posted by Flood at 1:45 PM on July 26, 2010