Discussion of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Chapter 5 "Definitions"

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 12 months ago to Books
1 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Rand continues to build her theory of concepts by always keeping to the claim that the criterion of classification is perceived in reality; it is not invented arbitrarily. That criterion allows you to identify the attributes of objects, identify their commonalities and differences, and group them as units. We integrate and differentiate. For Rand, concepts are mathematical statements. She continues this with a close inspection of Definitions. "A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept."

Every definition tells you first the larger group into which an existent is to be placed; then the definitions specifies how this example is different from others in its class.

My example here is the Wikipedia article on elephants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant). Sentence after sentence, it rigorously follows the rules that Rand identified.

As throughout, though, I have a problem with Rand's "strawchild" argument: she posits the mental processes of a hypothetical child whose interior experiences are not at all mine. I agree with Rand's conclusions, just not her analogies. It is true as Rand says that the concept of "father" (a specific man in the life of a child) is actually more complicated than the broader abstraction "man" (which includes women). To correctly understand the concept "Father" you need to know about the cultural and legal nature of the human family. I disagree with Rand on how "a" child first defines "father" and "man" because it was not my own internal experience.

Rand continues: "Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others." She says again: "Objectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all others within the field of man's knowledge." That all just points back to Chapter 1. This is a deeper development of those earlier statements.

Rand also points out that a correct definition will never be contradicted and will never contradict better knowledge. In other words, a child's simple understanding that dogs are different from cats - however defined (I offer the ability to climb trees; and dogs approach when you call, but cats run away) - will not be contradicted by what is learned later in a science class. In fact, new knowledge will only add validation to a correct but simple definition.








Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • -1
    Posted by JerseyBoy 9 years, 11 months ago
    MM: Rand continues to build her theory of concepts by always keeping to the claim that the criterion of classification is perceived in reality; it is not invented arbitrarily.

    I don't understand why Rand would believe the only two choices available are, 1) perceive a criterion, or 2) invent it arbitrarily.

    Anyway, most of the concepts in mathematics can be rigorously defined and logically supported, yet they are not perceived in reality, i.e., they are not perceived as attributes of material existents.

    They are neither "invented arbitarily" nor "perceived in reality."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo