What is the meaning of "man's life" to you?


l_chaim29

Recommended Posts

...and a "defining characteristic" is a feature belonging to a group of individuals within that category that the other individual members do not have.'

...

If you disagree with Rand's form of definition, that's one thing. But disagreeing with a mischaracterization of her thinking is not serious criticism.

Michael

Michael,

Your tone is not appreciated. It IS serious criticism because regardless of what her definitions are, she can't DEFINE something as important even if it fits her definition of 'defining characteristic'. The fallacy stands. Fallacious doesn't mean false of course, but fallacious her argument most certainly is.

In any case, rationality is not unique to humans. Superior rationality? OK, I'll buy that. But still how and why does that mean it's our most important attribute, quibbling about definitions aside? Rand smuggled that one in there, and it's a fallacy. Her 'definition' of 'defining characteristic' somehow became the most important, which is exactly how the fallacy works.

The purpose in deconstructing Rand is to make way for something better, existentially and personally. Good luck to you with that.

The problem is that Rand regularly abandons reason completely when it works against what she holds dear, all the while vehemently attacking detractors as irrational. The hypocrisy is not lost on me. This makes her a natural target. In this case, it seems she has tried to use definitions to wiggle out of the obvious logical minefield she created. It is educational and intellectually worthwhile to me to organize and defend my anti-Rand viewpoints as I hope it should be likewise for you and others to defend her ideas. I don't pretend to be able to solve all the problems, but I at least admit as much.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand and I are on the same page with regard to Capitalism. There we agree. Capitalism has promoted liberty and prosperity. Its antagonists have not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, although I'm fundamentally capitalist as well, I certainly do not agree with much that Rand has to say on this topic either. To me, it seems her ideas here were so idealistic, over-simplified, and sugar-coated that reading them, I'd expect the author to be about 12 years old.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob K,

You don't have to learn anything from Rand. That was never in question. Your definition of defining characteristic is not the one Rand used. (In any dictionary, a word usually has more than one meaning.)

Bob M,

Sorry for the impression of the tone. My intent is not to insult, but simply to properly present an evaluation. Isn't that the spirit of your tone in the following statement?

Now, what about all the other stuff like productive work and yada yada yada and all of Rand's proclaimed virtues? They are just that - proclaimed. They are not objectively based.

Or were you being sarcastic, insulting, etc.? If not, why do you think I would be?

To repeat, Rand's idea of a defining characteristic is not what is important, as you claim. It is a feature that is shared, measurable and unique to a subgroup within the context of the larger parent group.

If you want to make serious criticism of Rand, you need to get her meaning straight.

(Please see her meaning for "rationality" also. Yours apparently is different.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob K,

You don't have to learn anything from Rand. That was never in question. Your definition of defining characteristic is not the one Rand used. (In any dictionary, a word usually has more than one meaning.)

Bob M,

Sorry for the impression of the tone. My intent is not to insult, but simply to properly present an evaluation. Isn't that the spirit of your tone in the following statement?

Now, what about all the other stuff like productive work and yada yada yada and all of Rand's proclaimed virtues? They are just that - proclaimed. They are not objectively based.

Or were you being sarcastic, insulting, etc.? If not, why do you think I would be?

To repeat, Rand's idea of a defining characteristic is not what is important, as you claim. It is a feature that is shared, measurable and unique to a subgroup within the context of the larger parent group.

If you want to make serious criticism of Rand, you need to get her meaning straight.

(Please see her meaning for "rationality" also. Yours apparently is different.)

Michael

WTF??? I didn't say her definition explicitly included importance. What I mean is she smuggled importance in there or at least unintentionally (or worse - intentionally) interchanges the concepts. Therefore, it's a fallacy. Her definition is just fine.

"(The implication, if taken logically, is that I, by agreeing with much of Rand, have the mentality of about 12 years old.)"

You can imply what you wish, but the intent was nothing more than a criticism of a foolish set of ideas Rand had, and was not even addressed to you. Ugh - too hasty today... OK, OK, that's not a criticism I'll agree beforehand. It's a statement of my conclusion. A criticism would back this up - maybe later.

OK, I wrote : "she can't DEFINE something as important even if it fits her definition of 'defining characteristic'."

I see what's happened. I was not stating that her definition included importance, but it sort of looks that way. Let me expand a bit. What I meant was that IF she 'defined' importance into the 'defining characteristic' definition, then the fallacy happens right then. What she DID do is to apply a great deal of importance to man's rationality (I don't think that's in dispute) seemingly on the sole basis of the status of rationality as the differentiator. This is the fallacy.

So, the bottom line is that whether or not the definition or post definition discussion includes importance, the importance must be justfied. Uniqueness is not a justification.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What she DID do is to apply a great deal of importance to man's rationality (I don't think that's in dispute) seemingly on the sole basis of the status of rationality as the differentiator. This is the fallacy.

Bob,

I agree with this in several specific cases. The way I have put it in my own critiques is that Rand defined man as "rational animal," then sometimes threw away the genus. She treated certain philosophical issues about man as if the animal part did not exist. Not always, but in several specific instances. (I have elaborated on this a great deal elsewhere, so I won't go into specifics right now.)

EDIT: The uniqueness of a characteristic identifying a group is not a justification. It is a defining standard according to Objectivist epistemology.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand said that "the rational animal" is "the one and only valid definition of man". That is of course nonsense. The fact that rationality is a unique characteristic does not mean that it is the essential characteristic. The only valid definition of man is a definition that gives an accurate biological description, just as that of any other animal species. That will involve a long and detailed list of features (or a DNA sequence), so it is not practical for daily use, but who said that a valid definition must be short? The fact that we know no other rational animals is a contingency. Perhaps we may be able one day to create other rational animals by genetic manipulation, or they may evolve naturally, or we discover them on another planet. In that case the definition of man as "the rational animal" falls flat, but the detailed biological definition will still stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have trouble with "rational" we might investigate "conceptual animal" or focus on language. Language seems very promising in that it effectively will include almost every physiologically normal human being, while being rational is always optional, although it implies free will.

It might be true that we should use definitions that are useful in the context of what we know and modify or discard as the case evolves.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Rand already covered all that. She even discussed a rational Martian with the body of a spider. I am surprised that you are not familiar with it. See Chapter 7 of ITOE.

As to length of definition, the initial purpose of a concept is identification. If you accept Rand's idea of a concept as being like a file folder, you see that to open the folder you have two basic requirements (genus and differentia). Then you fill the folder with lots of specialized information (science). Don't forget that a concept in Objectivist epistemology is open-ended as to details.

We are back to entity identification again, not reductionism.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Rand already covered all that. She even discussed a rational Martian with the body of a spider. I am surprised that you are not familiar with it. See Chapter 7 of ITOE.

As to length of definition, the initial purpose of a concept is identification. If you accept Rand's idea of a concept as being like a file folder, you see that to open the folder you have two basic requirements (genus and differentia). Then you fill the folder with lots of specialized information (science). Don't forget that a concept in Objectivist epistemology is open-ended as to details.

One would hope not too open ended. Both species and higher taxa have changed over time in the domain of biological entities. To what extent is Objectivism compatible with the theory of evolution? How much descent with modification would our species have to undergo before an Objectivist would say the latest result is not Man (i.e. human)?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have trouble with "rational" we might investigate "conceptual animal" or focus on language. Language seems very promising in that it effectively will include almost every physiologically normal human being, while being rational is always optional, although it implies free will.

It might be true that we should use definitions that are useful in the context of what we know and modify or discard as the case evolves.

--Brant

Korzybski defined man as a "time-binding" class of life, which means we are able to pass symbolic, structural knowledge from one generation to the next. Many would argue that animals exhibit some rationality and language skills yet none can time-bind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand already covered all that. She even discussed a rational Martian with the body of a spider. I am surprised that you are not familiar with it. See Chapter 7 of ITOE.

She only says that such a Martian would be so different from man that we'd need a new concept to describe it, as we couldn't designate it as a "man" (she writes: "concepts are not to be integrated in disregard of necessity"). But that does not alter the fact that her definition of "man" as "the rational animal" in that case falls flat, showing that it is only a contingent definition. A really valid definition wouldn't be invalidated by the discovery of an intelligent Martian spider. The definition of man as "the rational animal" may be a convenient definition, but it is certainly not the "one and only valid definition of man", as she claims, and that is the point I'm trying to make (and Bob too, I understand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

In Objectivist epistemology, facts are absolute and knowledge is contextual. Facts don't change. Knowledge does. This is because we learn and some entities do become modified over time.

So, depending on the evolutionary descent of man, "rational" might go over to the genus and a new differentia might appear. These things have happened before with concepts (especially with technological advances). For instance a train no longer runs on wood or coal, yet that would have been one of its CDD's in the horse-and-buggy era. When we say "train" nowadays, we are still talking about the same kind of entity, but the type of fuel is no longer such a defining characteristic. There are even some trains that do not use rails, but magnetism instead, so we are looking at another change in the concept coming. Still, a train is a train.

Another for instance, in ancient times they thought the earth was flat. That was the concept. With more knowledge from explorations, the concept included sphere and rejected flat, but people still are talking about the same old earth today that they did back then.

In the case of man, "evolution" is considered as part of the animal (genus), so there is no problem with changing the definition to suit new characteristics as they appear. We are still talking about the same species.

Concepts are for identification and structuring knowledge, not for structuring how reality exists.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She only says that such a Martian would be so different from man that we'd need a new concept to describe it, as we couldn't designate it as a "man" (she writes: "concepts are not to be integrated in disregard of necessity").

Dragonfly,

Let's give both sides of Rand's "razor." She also wrote "concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." In order to avoid confusion, here is a fuller quote from ITOE (2nd ed., pp. 71-72), which also gives observation as the basis of concept-formation:

In the process of determining conceptual classification, neither the essential similarities nor the essential differences among existents may be ignored, evaded or omitted once they have been observed. Just as the requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary subdivision of concepts, so they forbid the arbitrary integration of concepts into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences—which is an error (or falsification) proceeding from definitions by non-essentials. (This is the method involved in the obliteration of valid concepts by means of "anti-concepts. ")

For example, if one took the capacity to run as man's essential characteristic and defined him as "a running animal," the next step would be the attempt to eliminate "nonessential" distinctions and to form a single, higher-level concept out of "running entities," such as a running man, a running river, a running stocking, a running movie, a running commentary, etc. (on some such grounds as the notion that entities have no epistemological priority over actions). The result would be cognitive stultification and epistemological disintegration.

Cognitively, such an attempt would produce nothing but a bad hash of equivocations, shoddy metaphors and unacknowledged "stolen" concepts. Epistemologically, it would produce the atrophy of the capacity to discriminate, and the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data—which means: the retrogression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man. (This is happening today in certain schools of biology and psychology, whose false definition of the concept "learning" has led to attempts to equate the "behavior" of a piece of magnetized iron with the "behavior" of man.)

The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological "razor": concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.

When we discern essentials according to the method of concept formation Rand laid out, there is no other differentia than "rational" for man. All other human characteristics can be observed among other animals. Concept formation cannot be (at least to the extent humans exercise it).

But that does not alter the fact that her definition of "man" as "the rational animal" in that case falls flat, showing that it is only a contingent definition. A really valid definition wouldn't be invalidated by the discovery of an intelligent Martian spider.

(sigh)

In Objectivist epistemology, ALL definitions are contingent (on context and previous knowledge). This is stated over and over and over. You are using a different method of reasoning for your "validation." You are mixing fact with knowledge, then blaming the knowledge for not being the fact.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of man, "evolution" is considered as part of the animal (genus), so there is no problem with changing the definition to suit new characteristics as they appear. We are still talking about the same species.

Concepts are for identification and structuring knowledge, not for structuring how reality exists.

Michael

Species change over time. Read -Origin of Species- by Charles Darwin. You should also read -The Ancestor's Tale- by Richard Dawkins.

Since Darwin published his work in the 1856, the theory of Evolution has joined hands with genetics and molecular biology and we now know to a greater degree why and how species change.

Five million years ago there was no homo sapien. Ten million years ago there was no genus homo. These new species and genus emerged as a result of genetic variation and natural selection. Sixty five million years ago most of the general and species of mammal we now have did not exist.

And yes, concepts are descriptive, not perscriptive. Reality is what it is. Theories exist to help us identify the facts and grasp their interrelations.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we discern essentials according to the method of concept formation Rand laid out, there is no other differentia than "rational" for man. All other human characteristics can be observed among other animals.

That is nonsense. How can we distinguish millions of animal species? A lot of them have for example eyes, so these "can be observed among other animals". Does that mean that we can't distinguish eyes from different species? And that is only one of a huge number of characteristics, that can be observed in many animals, but that still allow us to differentiate between them. We can also define man by his genome. Some 5% differentiates it from our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, larger percentages from other animals. Martian spiders won't change anything of that.

In Objectivist epistemology, ALL definitions are contingent (on context and previous knowledge). This is stated over and over and over. You are using a different method of reasoning for your "validation." You are mixing fact with knowledge, then blaming the knowledge for not being the fact.

I can't make head or tail of these vague accusations. I've only shown that Rand's pretense that she gives the "one and only valid definition of man" is quite wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...
I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

To decide what next to do man needs a standard to compare the several available alternatives against. That stand is his life. That action which best addresses the needs of his life becomes the chosen action.

When man is acting as an individual this procedure of is defined under the concept of ethics. In other words: the ethical man is the properly functioning man.

When man is functioning as a member of society the procedure used to determine his proper actions is defined under the concept of morality. In other words: Morality applies mans ethical actions to society.

Notice: Morality is not different from ethics except that it includes the equal right of others to act ethically when they encounter ones-self. The consequences resulting from another's actions define the actions one can perform in a social setting. Notice: If the others actions are contrary to ones best interest they are not moral actions. This is because ones life is the standard used to determine whether an action is ethical or not.

Notice this very important point. When another is acting immorally; i.e,. when another's actions threaten ones life, then to act in such a way as to protect one from its consequences becomes one ethical responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
In regards to rationality and choice: I figure a man can either be ignorant, or chose to ignore rationality.. but is inherently rational.

Yes.

Man is the 'rational' animal. When man acts contrary to his nature he cannot be considered a properly functioning human-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now