BOSWELL
. . . He [Mr. Harris] says plain things in a formal and abstract way, to be sure: but his method is good: for to have clear notions upon any subject, we must have recourse to analytick arrangement.
JOHNSON
Sir, it is what every body does, whether they will or no. But sometimes things may be made darker by definition. I see a cow, I define her, Animal quadrupes ruminans cornutum. But a goat ruminates, and a cow may have no horns. Cow is plainer.
BOSWELL
I think Dr. Franklin's definition of Man [is] a good one–"A tool-making animal."
JOHNSON
But many a man never made a tool; and suppose a man without arms, he could not make a tool.

This dialogue captures a moment of intellectual debate between Boswell and Dr. Johnson, revealing their differing perspectives on definitions and human characteristics. Boswell brings up Franklin's definition of man as "a tool-making animal." However, Johnson challenges this by pointing out that not all humans make tools, and some may be unable to do so due to physical limitations. This exchange not only underscores Johnson's penchant for questioning and scrutinizing definitions but also highlights the complexity of human identity. Johnson's response suggests that defining humans too narrowly can exclude certain individuals and oversimplify the vast diversity of human experience. The passage ultimately reflects Johnson's belief in the necessity of clear, practical definitions over abstract, generalized ones.