Is a definition truly definite?

Does the act of defining something truly making it definite? I believe that it is possible for people to interpret things in different ways depending on a their perspective. This agrees with what Crowley states, as noted in my previous blog entry in that there is no "absolute truth." With this being said, I believe that when people debate or argue about an issue, they are fighting for what they believe is the truth. But who is to define what is really right and wrong, true or false? As I pose this question, however, wouldn't that mean that a definition is not something definite or absolute, because there will always be people interpreting words, or definitions differently?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher and literary figure in the 18th century wrote, "Just as the shepherd is superior in kind to his sheep, so, too, the shepherds of men, or, in other words, their rulers, are superior in kind to their peoples" (p. 58, A World of Ideas). This exemplifies the exact question I raised earlier. If one was trying to "define" qualities a leader should possess, and they came across this passage, it could be interpreted in a few different ways. In one way, this passage could be interpreted in a way that means Rousseau defines a leader as someone who is superior above his/her people. However, another way this could be interpreted is that a leader is someone who is given his/her position as ruler and is therefore expected to be superior above all. In this case, it is unclear whether or not Rousseau believes that a leader should possess qualities of power and superiority, or if it is something that comes along with the territory that is perhaps not such a wonderful quality.

Therefore, how Rousseau defines a ruler in this particular passage is far from distinct. His definition of a leader is left up for interpretation from his audience.