tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1012236259027133349..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Ayn Rand & Epistemology 33Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38881887745928268832013-03-29T08:39:00.978-07:002013-03-29T08:39:00.978-07:00the real work of definitions is of course in defin...the real work of definitions is of course in defining abstract concepts, not concrete things. Love, Justice, Freedom, State, Man. That's where definition by essentials becomes a very mentally engaging -- and rewarding -- task.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1000214182338541182013-03-29T06:16:42.983-07:002013-03-29T06:16:42.983-07:00ultimately, because you're dealing with a uniq...ultimately, because you're dealing with a unique entity, you define it ostensively: "that thing." this is different from abstract categories like "planet," which integrate several concretes.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56080189580686530312013-03-29T04:47:23.247-07:002013-03-29T04:47:23.247-07:00How would you define Pluto in terms of essentials?...How would you define Pluto in terms of essentials?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21516695901605441852013-03-28T14:52:36.807-07:002013-03-28T14:52:36.807-07:00Indeed, it's an "updated" definition...Indeed, it's an "updated" definition. because "updates" are necessary when you define in terms of non-essentials. thus you can define an ungtss as "a human male who is 14 years old and 6'4"", and later as "a human male who is 20 years old and 6'9"." your definition of "ungtss" changes based on my age and height!<br /><br />better yet, you can define me as "the human who is at work" when i'm at work, and "the human who is at home" when i'm at home.<br /><br />that's why your definitions constantly change -- because you're defining in terms of non-essentials, and non-essentials always change. so your definitions always change.<br /><br />the objectivist approach is to define in terms of essentials, so that the definition can remain the same, even as our knowledge about the entity grows. thus i am "an ungtss" from my birth to my death, no matter how tall i am, where i live, what i'm doing, or how i'm feeling. no matter what you know about me, or don't know about me.<br /><br />your mode of definition doesn't work that way, though. because evidently you use definition to pack in everything you know about me, while i use definition to differentiate a thing from everything else while i continue to learn about it.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28762987428089750282013-03-28T13:58:58.856-07:002013-03-28T13:58:58.856-07:00More up to date:
Pluto
n.
1. Roman Mythology The...More up to date:<br /><br /><br />Pluto<br />n.<br />1. Roman Mythology The god of the dead and the ruler of the underworld.<br />2. A dwarf planet that until 2006 was classified as the ninth planet in our solar sytem, having a sidereal period of revolution about the sun of 248.5 years, 4.4 billion kilometers (2.8 billion miles) distant at perihelion and 7.4 billion kilometers (4.6 billion miles) at aphelion, and a diameter less than half that of Earth. See Usage Note at planet.<br /><br />Notice the reference to mass, diameter in this case. Also notice that this is not an entry in an encyclopedia. Also notice that it distinguishes Pluto first, by placing it in a general category (dwarf planet) , then by the particulars of its distance from the sun, orbit and size (sic).<br /><br />Also notice tha this is not an ostensive definition. :-)Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30671879661850439002013-03-28T13:08:37.010-07:002013-03-28T13:08:37.010-07:00Particular amusing that you pick a definition that...Particular amusing that you pick a definition that defines it as the smallest planet and farthest known from the sun, since it's now considered a dwarf planet and not the smallest or the farthest:).<br /><br />that's the problem with "defining" things in terms of everything you know about them, instead by what distinguishes them from everything else. you find yourself quoting definitions that are right one day, wrong the next:).ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85083497684209780042013-03-28T12:42:09.444-07:002013-03-28T12:42:09.444-07:00Online dictionary entry
Pluto
n
(Astronomy &...Online dictionary entry<br /><br />Pluto<br /><br />n<br />(Astronomy & Space / Celestial Objects) the smallest planet and the farthest known from the sun. Discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh (1906-97), it has one known satellite, Charon. Mean distance from sun: 5907 million km; period of revolution around sun: 248.6 years; period of axial rotation: 6.4 days; diameter and mass: 18 and 0.3 per cent that of earth respectively<br />[Latin, from Greek Ploutōn, literally: the rich one]<br /><br />Notice a reference to mass. <br /><br />Maybe you should have the entry edited.Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1129230451361120892013-03-28T11:12:01.941-07:002013-03-28T11:12:01.941-07:00"However, in the case of Pluto, looking throu..."However, in the case of Pluto, looking through a telescope alone did not give astronomers an appreciation of its mass. It took extensive mathematical analysis and number crunching to determine its actual size. This had to do with gravitational studies of one of Pluto's moons."<br /><br />Of course. That's because there's more to an entity than its definition. Its definition is what differentiates it from other entities -- what identifies it -- not every single thing about it. to some extent, that's the difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry, although encyclopedia entries are still not comprehensive. the point of a definition is to tell you what a person is talking about. the point of an encyclopedia entry is to tell you all sorts of stuff about it and how it relates to all sorts of other stuff.<br /><br />But we're not talking about encyclopedia entries here. we're talking about definitions.<br /><br />I don't understand your point about "language is particular." can you explain what you're talking about, please?ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70350454188751143182013-03-28T10:55:37.289-07:002013-03-28T10:55:37.289-07:00I'm going to try this one more time.
a) I did...<br />I'm going to try this one more time.<br /><br />a) I didn't define anything. That means I made no attempt to provide a definition for Iraq or Pluto. Heads of state and astronomers determine the status of nations and astral bodies based on their own set of definitions.<br /><br />b) I was, however, pointing out that perspectives and understanding of things change over time.<br /><br />So it's the definition of planet that has changed in essentials versus the definition of Pluto. Is this so? Ostensive definitions have their place. However, in the case of Pluto, looking through a telescope alone did not give astronomers an appreciation of its mass. It took extensive mathematical analysis and number crunching to determine its actual size. This had to do with gravitational studies of one of Pluto's moons. Also, prior to 2006, the IAU (International Astronomical Union) had no official definition of planet per se.<br /><br />Now, mind explaining how 'language is a particular'?Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91297339267737726762013-03-28T08:14:33.843-07:002013-03-28T08:14:33.843-07:00“Iraq had the same essentials as you say in 1988 a...“Iraq had the same essentials as you say in 1988 as it did in 2003. So did Pluto for that matter. Only in each case, they fell under very different broad, overarching categories over a matter of years. In other words, I don't recall making any definitions beyond paraphrasing the one you gave about the number two. So, just what is my approach to definitions?”<br /><br />Again, you’re defining Pluto in terms of whether it’s a planet or not. Then, when scientists change the definition of “planet,” adding a subcategory of “dwarf planets,” you say the definition of pluto has changed.<br /><br />But what has really changed is the definition of “Planet.” Not the definition of Pluto.<br /><br />Ultimately, because Pluto is a real entity in the real world, the definition of Pluto is ostensive. in other words, to define pluto, you pull out a telescope, point to a particular spot of light, and define Pluto as “That Thing.” If somebody pulls out a telescope and points to Venus, you say "Not That Thing."<br /><br />Thus when scientists decide that Pluto does not fall within a revised definition of "Planet" anymore, the issue is not a change in the definition of “Pluto,” but a change in the definition of “Planet.” The definition of “Planet” is what changed. Specifically, a subcategory of planets was created, known as “dwarf planets.” And these dwarf planets.<br /><br />“Would you really be rational if you went around redefining the words people were using "in terms of essentials," or would you merely be tiresome and pedantic? Isn't the "rational" approach to attempt to understand what people actually mean by the words they use, rather than attempting to impose "proper" meanings on those words irrespective of intentions? Aren't you the least bit interested in what people actually mean with the words they use?”<br /><br />It would be rational to both understand what other people mean by their words, understand what I mean by my words, and understand the reasons for and implications of the differences.<br /><br />“The point of using words is to be understood, not to be "proper."”<br /><br />I guess I’d counter that the point of words is both to be understood, and to express and absorb coherent information. In other words, I don’t think being “understood” and being “proper” are mutually exclusive.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90195880619198264902013-03-28T07:55:58.818-07:002013-03-28T07:55:58.818-07:00Greg,
I hope you're not suggesting that I exp...Greg,<br /><br />I hope you're not suggesting that I express myself in a less than felicitous manner.Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88464206261116948362013-03-28T07:32:14.583-07:002013-03-28T07:32:14.583-07:00to think like an intelligent, rational human being...<i>to think like an intelligent, rational human being, you'd have to define iraq in terms of essentials ... but if you did that, you'd be rational.</i><br /><br />Would you really be rational if you went around redefining the words people were using "in terms of essentials," or would you merely be tiresome and pedantic? Isn't the "rational" approach to attempt to understand what people actually mean by the words they use, rather than attempting to impose "proper" meanings on those words irrespective of intentions? Aren't you the least bit interested in what people actually mean with the words they use?<br /><br /><i>much more fun to run around spouting off without knowing what you mean by your words.</i><br /><br />Do people really not know what they mean? Perhaps they don't express themselves well, but that doesn't indicate they don't know what they mean. <br /><br />If a person is having difficulty expressing what they mean, definitions might help him choose words that more aptly express the intended meaning. But the definitions that will be of use are those to be found in a dictionary; they can't be definitions he has come up on his own. Indeed, defining your own terms is usually the worst thing you can do, since no one but you will know what those definitions are. If you wish to be understood, you have to accept common usage, irrespective of whether you regard such usage as "rational" or not. The point of using words is to be understood, not to be "proper."gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-59847656644388139462013-03-28T07:28:10.894-07:002013-03-28T07:28:10.894-07:00Iraq had the same essentials as you say in 1988 a...Iraq had the same essentials as you say in 1988 as it did in 2003. So did Pluto for that matter. Only in each case, they fell under very different broad, overarching categories over a matter of years. In other words, I don't recall making any definitions beyond paraphrasing the one you gave about the number two. So, just what is my approach to definitions? <br /><br />While you're at it, your definition of language as a 'particular' has me intrigued. Or was that a definition? Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8548290359733951182013-03-27T11:58:16.049-07:002013-03-27T11:58:16.049-07:00to think like an intelligent, rational human being...to think like an intelligent, rational human being, you'd have to define iraq in terms of essentials -- geographic, political, legal, ethnic, or what have you. you'd then have to define "sovereign state" in terms of essentials -- "what is a state? what are the conditions of sovereignty? what is the moral status of a sovereign state?"<br /><br />but if you did that, you'd be rational. not a very popular approach. much more fun to run around spouting off without knowing what you mean by your words.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39654004411264027492013-03-27T11:54:16.161-07:002013-03-27T11:54:16.161-07:00The point is that it's the detail that makes t...The point is that it's the detail that makes the definition, not the vague, overarching category. to define "iraq" as "sovereign state" is to say nothing about what either is, exactly that whatever they both are, you think "iraq" is an example of a "sovereign state."<br /><br />the reason you don't think definitions can be clear is because your process of definition is -- quite simply -- nuts.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23171531003502700062013-03-27T11:37:22.654-07:002013-03-27T11:37:22.654-07:00For a non-English speaker, it might help to explai...For a non-English speaker, it might help to explain that it's a number, then provide all the detail necessary. Or use 'integer' if you like. Unintentional irony again?Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4144933957435165522013-03-27T11:02:33.648-07:002013-03-27T11:02:33.648-07:00a proper definition of "2" would be some...a proper definition of "2" would be something like "the integer between 1 and 3." or "the sum of 1 and 1." or something similar. you're not defining a number when you note that it's a member of a broader class. you're just asserting that whatever it is, and whatever the broader class is, the individual falls within the broader class.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42672997407623322032013-03-27T10:59:34.436-07:002013-03-27T10:59:34.436-07:00Bokata,
Look after the two dashes.
"All of ...Bokata,<br /><br />Look after the two dashes.<br /><br />"All of your definitions run backwards -- defining a particular entity in terms of a broader categorical concept."<br /><br />Your definition is vaguer than your word. For example, "2 is a number." "Number" doesn't define 2. 3 and 4 and 5 are also numbers.<br /><br />What you're really doing when you say "2 is a number" is, "whatever a number is, 2 is one of them." then you have to define "number."<br /><br />defining an entity as a number of a broader class of entities is not a conceptual definition of the individual entity. it's a statement that whatever the broader category of entities is (and it hasn't been defined), the individual entity falls within that undefined category.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66174582572582324252013-03-27T10:39:28.225-07:002013-03-27T10:39:28.225-07:00Ungtss,
How can a definition run backward?
Also....Ungtss,<br /><br />How can a definition run backward?<br /><br />Also...<br />'There's no ambiguity there. The only ambiguity is in what labels and sublabels we choose to apply as placeholders to different sets of characteristics.'<br /><br />Unintentional irony?<br /><br />And, regarding an earlier post you stated 'language is a particular.'<br /><br />Seems you've got the definitions down pat.Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17739540465826263682013-03-27T09:10:48.297-07:002013-03-27T09:10:48.297-07:00to the extent we argue about whether "Pluto i...to the extent we argue about whether "Pluto is a planet" or "Pluto is a dwarf planet," we're not really arguing about what pluto is. We're arguing about what a planet is.<br /><br />to the extent we use the shorthand "Pluto is a dwarf planet," we're really using "dwarf planet" as a placeholder for all the characteristics that have been loaded into the definition "dwarf planet." Thus if "Dwarf planet" means "rock in space with X,Y, and Z characteristics," then "Pluto is a dwarf planet" simply means "Pluto is a rock in space with X, Y, and Z characteristics."<br /><br />There's no ambiguity there. The only ambiguity is in what labels and sublabels we choose to apply as placeholders to different sets of characteristics.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63042953302712688392013-03-27T09:04:53.124-07:002013-03-27T09:04:53.124-07:00"So, Is Pluto a planet or not?There seems to ..."So, Is Pluto a planet or not?There seems to be some controversy as of late on this score. Was Iraq a sovereign nation or an outlaw state from 1980 to 2003?"<br /><br />All of your definitions run backwards -- defining a particular entity in terms of a broader categorical concept. <br /><br />thus the ambiguity in definition is in the definition of "planet," not in the concept "pluto." and it's in the definition of "sovereign state," not in the concept "iraq."<br /><br />this is critically important, because the definition of "Iraq" is not ambiguous. it's defined geographically, politically, and personally in terms of particular concretes.<br /><br />the definition of "sovereign state," however, is ambiguous, because the one does not have a clear understanding of what we mean by "sovereign."<br /><br />similarly, the definition of "planet" is ambiguous, because we're playing with abstract categories. but the concept "Pluto" is not ambiguous. It's a particular thing that can be seen through a telescope, and whose motion can be predicted.<br /><br />etc.<br /><br />your confusion is a result of a failure to identify where the ambiguity in your definitions is. it's not in the particular concept. it's in the broader category.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12946840662819363192013-03-27T08:32:50.915-07:002013-03-27T08:32:50.915-07:00Greg,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my last...Greg,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my last post. Will get back with you on Aristotle's notion of concepts. Meanwhile...<br /><br />A is A. Existence exists. Ergo existence is identity. So, Is Pluto a planet or not? There seems to be some controversy as of late on this score. Was Iraq a sovereign nation or an outlaw state from 1980 to 2003? The State Department changed policy in this regard around 1990, although Iraq was the same country with the same leadership for the duration. Was Ulysses' oar a winnowing fan once he had walked far enough inland? Is man a machine, or a rational being with agency and free will? If we're rational creatures, why are so many of us impervious to reason in whatever guise?<br /><br />In their attempt to do away with the analytic-synthetic distinction, Rand and company are attempting to make their truth claims appear to be self evident when they are anything but. The same applies to their semantic manipulations. Once you've hijacked logic and linguistics, the truth is bound to fall out where you want it to.Bokatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35008666373301647862013-03-26T17:11:21.481-07:002013-03-26T17:11:21.481-07:00If the concept of man were not identical for every...<i>If the concept of man were not identical for every individual, then how could people communicate?</i><br /><br />And as we're all aware, no-one has ever misunderstood anything said by anyone else. All communications are perfect meetings of the minds, and show how we all mean exactly the same thing by such words as "mother", "patriotism", and "green".<br /><br />(If you're wondering about "green", there's some fascinating work on color perception; basically any given individual doesn't even perceive colors consistently, so it's impossible to claim that two different people would.)Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-36041950417493232702013-03-26T14:41:42.102-07:002013-03-26T14:41:42.102-07:00A concept contains the yet unknown, simply means t...A concept contains the yet unknown, simply means that concepts are open ended , that newly aquired information or integrations concerning a specific class of entity can be subsumed under the original concept without having to form unique concept that does contain the new information. It is apparent in the whole of work that this is what she 'meant'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17752198548133535642013-03-26T10:42:54.277-07:002013-03-26T10:42:54.277-07:00"Is she aware that she uses the term concept ..."Is she aware that she uses the term concept in two different senses, one Platonic and the other naturalistic?"<br /><br />You make a good point -- there's an ambiguity there that she doesn't seem to have explicitly resolved -- at least not anywhere i've seen.<br /><br />As I've come to interpret her idea, though, i don't think she's talking about concept in two different senses so much as talking about two different aspects of concepts: their referent, and their relationship to other concepts.<br /><br />For instance, when my daughter and I talk about dogs, we're both talking about the same class of entities. Even though I know more about dogs than she does. We're still talking about the same thing.<br /><br />My knowledge _about_ dogs is composed of conceptual links between my concept of dogs and _other_ concepts. for instance, the knowledge that "dogs have hearts" is a link between two concepts -- dogs and hearts. <br /><br />my concept of "dog" is unchanged. i'm still referring to the same class of entities as my 3-year-old. <br /><br />what has changed is that i have drawn a connection between that concept and another concept -- added complexity to the concept -- integrated it into a wider web of understanding.<br /><br />but again, this is just my personal interpretation, based on my personal experience. i don't know what she personally would say to clear up the ambiguous usage of "concept" in this concept. i just know what i do.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com