Normal is what one would reasonably define as "expected." That which does not or tends not to deviate significantly from one period, instance, or form to another.

If I go to work at my office desk job one day and don't get violently stabbed, that would be "normal."

If I go to work at my job as a correctional officer in a poorly-run prison and someone else gets violently stabbed, that would also be "normal" (perhaps?).

Bear in mind we can hold inaccuracies, perhaps even full-fledged delusions as far as what is "typical" or "expected", particularly for those new or inexperienced or who otherwise don't really explore the full depth and area of a particular scenario or circumstance (ie. "living in a bubble" or "wearing rose-colored glasses" or simply just being fortunate enough to live a charmed or otherwise privileged life).

what you're describing is natural.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition. — Copernicus

You’re asking for a single, universal philosophical definition of “normal,” but the very concept of normal is context-dependent and relative.

wouldn't have started a thread if it was a piece of cake.

Is it even possible?

And perhaps more interestingly, how do we tell that a mooted definition is true, or even accurate?

The OP is a big topic. You could put on a bit more work. See the How to Write an OP

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

I don't think normal is equivalent to natural (which resorts to central tendancy). — Copernicus

Normal has a scientific and critical foundation, often an organic, developmental, or evolutionary progression.
Natural is a trend in a given time period -- often studied statistically or probabilistic. For example, there is no 'normal' in life expectancy, only natural.

Can you define normal? — Copernicus

Sure. It’s within one standard deviation of the mean.

last time I put in big works I got suspended :rofl:

that's natural.

how do you define it?

theoretically, everything has a one liner universal definition.

that's natural. — Copernicus

It’s called a normal distribution.

Really? Who's theory?

what you're describing is natural. — Copernicus

No, @Outlander is describing "normal". Normal is all about expectation. To meet expectation is to be normal .

"Natural" is an entirely different concept. To be "natural" is to be free from influence. "Whose influence?" is context dependent. Usually, but not always, to be natural is to be free from human influence.

still doesn't solve it.

natural means stemming from nature or following nature's laws.

Normal is a philosophically paradoxical term.

definition means defining something. everything can be defined.

everything can be defined. — Copernicus

It can? Wittgenstein and Austin and a few others might differ. There's also an obvious problem of circularity.

what you're describing is natural.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition. — Copernicus

See, this is what's annoying. If you can definitively reject a definition, that means you already have your own.

How do you wish us to coax out your own ingrained belief and standards for you today, sir? Would you like a towel and foot rub with that as well?

your definition wasn't a universal one liner.

last time I put in big works I got suspended :rofl: — Copernicus

Maybe you should give yourself a name you can live up to.

….a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition. — Copernicus

For that being of sufficient intelligence, “normal” is that in the negation of which, is irrational.

:point:

It’s called a normal distribution — T Clark

:point: :point:

It’s within one standard deviation of the mean — T Clark

I think you have mixed up "normal" and "natural." Something can be natural but not normal. For example, a solar eclipse is natural; it is not a normal occurrence.

why not?

To meet expectation is to be normal . — hypericin

This definition requires a judge of what is to be "expected." Who will judge what is to be expected? Who will decide if that fits the definition of "normal?"

In one particular individual's life, we may refer to what is normal - what is routine - in their life.

When we try to apply the concept of "normality" to all human beings - who demonstrate a great deal of variation - the concept kind of breaks down.

We may say it is normal to breathe, it is normal for a heart to beat, it is normal to like chocolate chip cookies, it is normal to love your mother, but when we try to extend the concept of "normalcy" to all characteristics of all humans, it cannot work without marginalizing people who don't fit the parameters of what others "expect."

Also, to me, natural means it happens or is made up according to the laws of the physical universe - a materialistic point of view, I suppose.

So what is acceptable? What is psychopathy? What is abnormal? What is supernatural? — Copernicus

Normality has both social and scientific origin. They are the judgements on the phenomena which fit in the realm of observed events, acts or behaviour by the set principles or expectations within the society or in the theories, principles or laws of Science.

That's natural (central tendency).

natural means stemming from nature or following nature's laws. — Copernicus

This definition covers a large chunk of usage, but not all of it.

"Let events follow their natural course". What is "natural" here is not nature's laws, the sentence more likely refers to human events. For events to "follow their natural course" means that they proceed without intervention, where what intervention cons is determined by context. "To rely on your natural ability" mainly means to forego training, not necessarily to forego technological augmentation such as fancy gear or doping.

The most general meaning of "natural" is freedom from intervention, not following natural laws. It is just that human intervention is the sort of intervention often implied when "natural" is used.