Day 24 of 365: The Elements

Today's contemplation involves looking at the elements (water, fire, wind, space, and conciousness).  If this feels a little medieval to you, then we have something in common.  This argument was originally given to refute the claim that since the Buddha taught about the elements then they must exist.  Essentially, this argument boils down to looking at something (the definiendum) and its defining characteristics.  Take space for example.  Space is, by definition, that which does not obscure or obstruct and that which is thoroughly intangible.  Which came first, the defining characteristics or the definiendum?  If the characteristics came first, then you would have characteristics without the thing they are characteristics of, which cannot be the case.  Also, you cannot have the definiendum before the defining characteristics because these characteristics define the object.  Could they arise at the same time and truly exist independently?  No, because then they would not be in a causal relationship.  In fact, they are completely dependent--the definiendum has no independent existence from the defining characteristics.  Since neither has a nature of its own, then they cannot be real in the way we think they are.  Feels a little fishy to me.  Just because something is dependent upon defining characterisitcs doesn't seem to imply that it doesn't exist in a solid real way.  We think of things in terms of defining characteristics all the time.  Do we enumerate flawless lists of defining characteristics?  No--that seems like an impossible task.  We can often be duped into taking one object for a similar one due to our generalizations or lack of perception.  How much do we believe we can write down a list of characteristics to be checked in finite time to verify something real (single, lasting, and independent)?  If we can't, what does that say about the thing we're trying to define?