Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel hasn't answered, so I ask you. How does convention work for new words?

All words were neologisms at some point!

Yet somehow, amazingly, they managed to become conventions.

Most neologisms are combinations of previously existing words or syllables from existing, prior, or parallel languages. That's why English dictionaries will give the Latin "roots" of a word, for example. They usually come together in exactly the way General Semanticist describes - when there is a requirement for them, say like a new invention, or a new discovery.

I'm not sure why I have to state the obvious here?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All words were neologisms at some point!

Yet somehow, amazingly, they managed to become conventions.

...

I'm not sure why I have to state the obvious here?

Daniel,

You mean the obvious amazing part that words refer to concepts that are understandable, which is how they managed to become conventions instead of just neologisms or grunts?

Michael

[Brendan Hutching]

Until the stubborn person’s arguments become accepted by a sufficient number of people and the new meaning becomes standard. So convention wins again.

And if that doesn't happen, a far more likely outcome? Convention loses again.

Daniel hasn't answered, so I ask you. How does convention work for new words?

Invent a neologism. Introduce it into your conversation. If it spreads, convention wins. If it lies fallow, convention loses. Either way, convention rules.

If you like, you could try using “selfishness” in the Randian sense, and see how far it flies. Apart from the difficulties you will encounter in communication, you will also need to find a word for the behaviours conventionally described as “selfish”.

You will also have to account for related expressions such as “self-centred” and “self-obsessed”, and show why these describe desirable, or at least neutral, behaviours.

Eventually, you may ask yourself: what’s the point?, especially when we already have an eminently serviceable word to describe certain behaviours.

[tjohnson]

Invent a neologism. Introduce it into your conversation. If it spreads, convention wins. If it lies fallow, convention loses. Either way, convention rules.

If you like, you could try using "selfishness" in the Randian sense, and see how far it flies. Apart from the difficulties you will encounter in communication, you will also need to find a word for the behaviours conventionally described as "selfish".

You will also have to account for related expressions such as "self-centred" and "self-obsessed", and show why these describe desirable, or at least neutral, behaviours.

Eventually, you may ask yourself: what's the point?, especially when we already have an eminently serviceable word to describe certain behaviours.

Good points Brendan. This is precisely why people in technical fields create specialized terminology to facilitate communication in their profession. Everyday words are not very useful in a rigorous endeavour because of the various interpretations possible.

[merjet]

Invent a neologism. Introduce it into your conversation. If it spreads, convention wins. If it lies fallow, convention loses. Either way, convention rules.

I suspect you are missing the point. How can convention win when the neologism is first made? There is no conventional definition to follow then. It has not yet been established. So the basis of any definition at that time must be something else.

As I reminder, I am not saying that convention has no merit. In my view, and I'm sure many agree, standard #1 (see here) is much more important and fundamental than standard #2 (convention). An individual can use standard #1 for conceptual self-discipline apart from interpersonal communication. Standard #1 has an epistemological importance way ahead of convention. Convention mainly serves interpersonal communication.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will insist on my point.

A neologism cannot become a convention unless it refers to a concept that people can easily understand.

Otherwise a made-up word is the equivalent of a grunt. It means nothing.

Notice that concepts, once established, rarely change although conventional use of words change all the time.

Michael

[tjohnson]

People were talking long before they were defining words. Simple communication like 'let's go hunt some bison' is possible without any definitions. It is only when we get into more advanced language like in science that definitions become important.

[merjet]

People were talking long before they were defining words.

Yup. And before that they were using gestures to refer and represent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin is correct.

I still get amazed that people don't understand that, in Objectivism, a concept is formed fundamentally in relation to referents, not words. A word is important to concept-formation only if it is a referent.

Things used to be simpler when people defined their concepts by gestures and noises. And if you toyed with them over meaning like people do nowadays, they bashed you over the head to make sure you were speaking the same conceptual language. Then you understood.

Learning used to be a lot easier...

Michael

[Selene]

Merlin is correct.

I still get amazed that people don't understand that, in Objectivism, a concept is formed fundamentally in relation to referents, not words. A word is important to concept-formation only if it is a referent.

Things used to be simpler when people defined their concepts by gestures and noises. And if you toyed with them over meaning like people do nowadays, they bashed you over the head to make sure you were speaking the same conceptual language. Then you understood.

Learning used to be a lot easier...

Michael

Michael:

I like the smacking in the head approach.

I would like to bring back dueling at least to the matrimonial and or family disputes.

dueling

Advantages...

choices of weapons...

could even be banjos or harps

it would save lots of money, eliminate most of the lawyers, cull the herd, reduce mankind's destruction of the planet and make for some really great pay for view.

Priceless.

Adam

[tjohnson]

I still get amazed that people don't understand that, in Objectivism, a concept is formed fundamentally in relation to referents, not words. A word is important to concept-formation only if it is a referent.

Things used to be simpler when people defined their concepts by gestures and noises. And if you toyed with them over meaning like people do nowadays, they bashed you over the head to make sure you were speaking the same conceptual language. Then you understood.

It is not only in Objectivism

There are 2 ways to learn a concept. If you do not speak the language you can be shown pictures or objects etc. and associate them with the symbols. This can be a slow process. Once you have learned the basics of the language you learn new concepts much more efficiently by using definitions.

[jeffrey smith]

People were talking long before they were defining words. Simple communication like 'let's go hunt some bison' is possible without any definitions. It is only when we get into more advanced language like in science that definitions become important.

On the contrary, even that simple communication requires definitions. The fact that definitions were not written out in long elaborate precision does not mean that definitions did not exist back them. That simple sentence, "Let's go hunt some bison", requires the listener to have a working definition of every term in the sentence: he needs to know what that "hunt" means pursue with the aim of catching and killing for the sake of harvesting edible meat; he needs to know the precise animal which "bison" refers to; he needs to know that "let's" [let us] is a suggestive statement applicable to both the speaker and the listener, and that the speaker means to hunt more than one bison ("some").

Otherwise the sentence could be conveying, as far as the listener is concerned, a demand that the listener go deep sea diving without companions.

Jeffrey S.

[tjohnson]

On the contrary, even that simple communication requires definitions. The fact that definitions were not written out in long elaborate precision does not mean that definitions did not exist back them.

Yes, it does.

[jeffrey smith]

On the contrary, even that simple communication requires definitions. The fact that definitions were not written out in long elaborate precision does not mean that definitions did not exist back them.

Yes, it does.

Then please explain how the listener could have understood "let's go hunting for bison" without even the most casual and informal definition of all the words in that sentence.

I'll save you the trouble. It's impossible. If a word does not have a definition, it does not have a meaning.

Jeffrey Smith

[tjohnson]

Then please explain how the listener could have understood "let's go hunting for bison" without even the most casual and informal definition of all the words in that sentence.

I'll save you the trouble. It's impossible. If a word does not have a definition, it does not have a meaning.

Jeffrey Smith

Of course the caveman knows what the words mean, but he has no need of dictionaries and definitions. I don't understand what you are arguing about, do you think they had dictionaries back then??

[merjet]

Then please explain how the listener could have understood "let's go hunting for bison" without even the most casual and informal definition of all the words in that sentence.

I'll save you the trouble. It's impossible. If a word does not have a definition, it does not have a meaning.

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey, I think you are using "definition" in an unusual way. It is not unprecedented, since people sometimes use the phrase "ostensive definition" or "definition by example". In any case, you used "definition" in the above as if it were the entire meaning of the word. That is not ordinary parlance, which 'general semanticist' is using. "Definition" usually means the meaning of a word in terms of other words, i.e. what is found in a dictionary. In ITOE Ayn Rand used "ostensive definition" several times. However, she said a definition (not preceded by "ostensive") is "a condensation of, not a substitute for, a wider knowledge of the existents involved" (ITOE2, 42).

Edited December 22, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[jeffrey smith]

Then please explain how the listener could have understood "let's go hunting for bison" without even the most casual and informal definition of all the words in that sentence.

I'll save you the trouble. It's impossible. If a word does not have a definition, it does not have a meaning.

Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey, I think you are using "definition" in an unusual way. It is not unprecedented, since people sometimes use the phrase "ostensive definition" or "definition by example". In any case, you used "definition" in the above as if it were the entire meaning of the word. That is not ordinary parlance, which 'general semanticist' is using. "Definition" usually means the meaning of a word in terms of other words, i.e. what is found in a dictionary. In ITOE Ayn Rand used "ostensive definition" several times. However, she said a definition (not preceded by "ostensive") is "a condensation of, not a substitute for, a wider knowledge of the existents involved" (ITOE2, 42).

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (which is especially owing from me as one who criticizes Rand's non standard definitions). I was using definition more or less as a synonym for meaning, on the grounds that the speaker and the listener must both have a clear (if not verbally expressed) idea of what the word is, if communication is to be successful.

Yet if you asked Ogg the caveman what he meant by whatever collection of uttered sounds he used to convey the idea of "bison", he would be able to communicate by gestures or direct pointing or some other manner ("the animal Ugg killed for us last week") what exactly a bison is--in other words, to offer a definition, albeit not necessarily "in terms of other words".

Jeffrey S.

Edited December 22, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Xray]

In ITOE Rand did address very young children forming concepts to some extent.

You mean the passage in ITOE where she iirc, states that small children who don't yet know any words (!) will note and compare the lenghts of various object (pencil, ruler, etc) and that this gives them an idea of the concept "length"?

That's absurd, putting the linguistic cart before the horse.

Does Rand in all seriousness believe children so young that they don't yet know the simplest words (e.g. "Mommy") already engage in this mental activity demanding such a high degree of abstraction?

I have the impression that Rand never consulted any linguists to educate herself on how children acquire language.

Yet if you asked Ogg the caveman what he meant by whatever collection of uttered sounds he used to convey the idea of "bison", he would be able to communicate by gestures or direct pointing or some other manner ("the animal Ugg killed for us last week") what exactly a bison is--in other words, to offer a definition, albeit not necessarily "in terms of other words".

This addreses the importance of the relationship with the objective referent, intaht case the finite object.

There has been lot of talk about categorizing here, but what about the relationship with the finite object?

I doubt caveman was sitting there while working at his stone weapon, telling himself "this is going to be categorized as "hand axe" by later generations?

It was the other way round: an (arbitrary) chain of sounds was connected to a finite object first.

Waht IS a "definiton"? The termis derived from Latin "definitio" wich contains the word finis (limit).

Starting at the root:

The primary is the physical definition of an object.

To define: to make distinct and clear; to set apart; to differentiate.

The second is relationship as determined by the definitions of the objects involved in the relationship.

The third: Words set as audio/visual symbols as abstract representations of an object or relationship.

When one sees a tree as in mentally abstracted by its set of differentiating set of

characteristics, one has visually defined it. When one sees the tree rooted in

rooted in the lawn, one visually defines the relationship between lawn and tree.

Words that represent this condition are a description, i.e., a definition of the entity and definition of the relationship.

Box A is defined by its differentiating set of characteristics. It is these characteristics of specific length, height, depth, wood, etc. which

constitute the definition of the box. Hence, to define, "Box A" is to list

the items in this set of characteristics. The same is true of "Box B."

The term "box", as in category is to define the word (not the thing because there is no thing (concrete object) to define) by listing the similarities which have been mentally grouped by arbitrary selection.

Another example: An electron is differentiated from a proton by a set of characteristics different from the set of the proton.

To "define" them as subatomic particles is to define a word symbol for a subjectively created category after each objective identity has been established

The relationship is between the actual electron and actual proton, or other

actual entity identity. Herein, lies cause and effect.

A category is not the thing.

It is merely the organization, the mental grouping on selected similarities.

As important as this mind function is, a subjectively created category is not objective identity, therefore, never in itself has the attributes of a thing, of an entity.

To know of an object by the percept of touch (e. g. feels rough) is to hold a perceptual perceptual identity of the object.

To combine the feeling of rough with the feeling of rigid is to mentally integrate the two percepts to form a onceptual identity of the object as rough and rigid.

Differentiation is the sine qua non of definition of an object, or the definition of a word.

The degree of differentiation (definition) is dependent upon knowledge and circumstance of need.

To say that Individual A is six feet tall and Individual B is five feet tall

is sufficient information to differentiate A from B by this differing characteristic.

On the other hand, a doctor interested in examining and/or treating internal organs requires a greater degree of differentiation; an extended sequence of mentally abstracting by difference.

This process may be carried through to mentally abstracting, heart, lung, liver, etc., with each item subject to further abstracting by difference unto DNA if so desired.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

You mean the passage in ITOE where she iirc, states that small children who don't yet know any words (!) will note and compare the lenghts of various object (pencil, ruler, etc) and that this gives them an idea of the concept "length"?

That's absurd, putting the linguistic cart before the horse.

Does Rand in all seriousness believe children so young that they don't even yet know he simplest words (e.g. "Mommy") already engage in this mental activity demanding such a high degree of abstraction?

Utter hogwash! Rand says nothing about a child grasping the idea of length before learning the word "mommy". The word "mommy" is not even in ITOE. Also, Rand clearly says a child's first concepts are of entities, concepts of attributes (e.g. length) come later, and first words are of visual objects. Your dishonesty is on full display.

The (implicit) concept "existent" undergoes three stages of development in man's mind. The first stage is a child's awareness of objects, of things—which represents the (implicit) concept "entity." (ITOE2, 6)

The first words a child learns are words denoting visual objects, and he retains his first concepts visually. (ITOE2, 12)

In the process of forming concepts of entities, a child's mind has to focus on a distinguishing characteristic—i.e., on an attribute—in order to isolate one group of entities from all others. He is, therefore, aware of attributes while forming his first concepts, but he is aware of them perceptually, not conceptually. It is only after he has grasped a number of concepts of entities that he can advance to the stage of abstracting attributes from entities and forming separate concepts of attributes. (ITOE2, 14)

Let us now examine the process of forming the simplest concept, the concept of a single attribute (chronologically, this is not the first concept that a child would grasp; but it is the simplest one epistemologically)—for instance, the concept "length." (ITOE2, 10)

Edited December 22, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

You mean the passage in ITOE where she iirc, states that small children who don't yet know any words (!) will note and compare the lenghts of various object (pencil, ruler, etc) and that this gives them an idea of the concept "length"?

That's absurd, putting the linguistic cart before the horse.

Does Rand in all seriousness believe children so young that they don't even yet know he simplest words (e.g. "Mommy") already engage in this mental activity demanding such a high degree of abstraction?

Utter hogwash! Rand says nothing about a child grasping the idea of length before learning the word "mommy". The word "mommy" is not even in ITOE. Also, Rand clearly says a child's first concepts are of entities, concepts of attributes (e.g. length) come later, and first words are of visual objects. Your dishonesty is on full display.

No, Merlin, what is on display is Rand contradicting herself time after time in ITOE. I don't have ITOE here right now but will show you the quote later.

Let us now examine the process of forming the simplest concept, the concept of a single attribute (chronologically, this is not the first concept that a child would grasp; but it is the simplest one epistemologically)—for instance, the concept "length." (ITOE2, 10)

Another allegation by Rand (about a concept like length being simple for a child to grasp). What "evidence" does she base her conclusion on? For where does it say the concept "length" is simple to form for children? I don't get this impression at all. For example, six year-olds still often confuse "bigger" with longer/taller, let alone will they easily produce terms like "length", "width", "height", "breadth". etc.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Only the six year olds that have been crippled by your destructive "teaching" regimen.

You might want to actually inform yourself about Ayn's thought patterns before you continue to humiliate yourself here.

For example, Jennifer Burns points out on the top of page 42:

"To effect this transvaluation of values Rand had to carefully redefine (1) selfishness itself. Egoism or selfishness typically described one who 'puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself,' she wrote. 'Fine!' But this understanding was missing something critical. The important element, ethically speaking, was 'not what one does or how one does it, but why one does it.' Selfishness was a matter of motivation, not outcome. Therefore, anyone who sought power for power's sake was not truly selfish. Like Rand's neighbor, the stereotypical egoist was seeking a goal defined by others, living as 'they want him to live and conquer to the extent of a home, a yacht and a full stomach.' By contrast, a true egoist, in Rand's sense of the term, would put 'his own "I," his standard of values, above all things, and [conquer] to live as he pleases, as he chooses and as he believes." Nor would a truly selfish person seek to dominate others, for that would mean living for others, adjusting his values and standards to maintain his superiority. Instead, "an egoist is a man who lives for himself."

Ms. Xray, you live and breath in a behavioralist, bean counting outcome based gestalt. You owe, out of respect for the right extended to you to post here, to attempt to understand Ayn, in her definitional set before you would be sufficiently informed to be apt at constructively criticizing her works.

Adam

Ms. Xray's study guide to Ayn compiled by Adam Selene

(1) redefine means to change the meaning and then to state the new meaning.

[merjet]

No, Merlin, what is on display is Rand contradicting herself time after time in ITOE. I don't have ITOE here right now but will show you the quote later.

No, Xray, what is on display here is your making stuff up, trying to cram it in Ayn Rand's mouth, and what you make up blatantly contradicts what Rand wrote, as evidenced by my post. What is on display here is your dishonesty.

Whatever you may quote later -- which you will likely distort beyond recognition -- does not erase those quotes I made. If you are honest, you will deal with them honestly.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

You might want to actually inform yourself about Ayn's thought patterns before you continue to humiliate yourself here.

For example, Jennifer Burns points out on the top of page 42:

"To effect this transvaluation of values Rand had to carefully redefine (1) selfishness itself. Egoism or selfishness typically described one who 'puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself,' she wrote. 'Fine!' But this understanding was missing something critical. The important element, ethically speaking, was 'not what one does or how one does it, but why one does it.' Selfishness was a matter of motivation, not outcome. Therefore, anyone who sought power for power's sake was not truly selfish. Like Rand's neighbor, the stereotypical egoist was seeking a goal defined by others, living as 'they want him to live and conquer to the extent of a home, a yacht and a full stomach.' By contrast, a true egoist, in Rand's sense of the term, would put 'his own "I," his standard of values, above all things, and [conquer] to live as he pleases, as he chooses and as he believes." Nor would a truly selfish person seek to dominate others, for that would mean living for others, adjusting his values and standards to maintain his superiority. Instead, "an egoist is a man who lives for himself."

Ms. Xray, you live and breath in a behavioralist, bean counting outcome based gestalt. You owe, out of respect for the right extended to you to post here, to attempt to understand Ayn, in her definitional set before you would be sufficiently informed to be apt at constructively criticizing her works.

I'm perfectly familiar with Rand's thought patterns which boil down to how she thinks "man" "ought to" live.

She criticizes others' subjective valuations and choices because they don fit her personal set, labeling those other choices as "irrational". .

You cite Burns's description of Rand's mode of thought as if what Burns wrote were any proof of the correctness of Rand's thinking.

It's as if I cited principles of the Communist ideology here. Which would prove nothing terms of correctness of the principles.

The fallacy in Rand's thinking lies the illusion of objective value and in her ignorance of self-interest motivating every choice, which naturally comprises those choices made by others which she does not accept and/or can't understand.

So contrary to what Rand believes, in every choice we make, we decide according to our personal standard of value, i. e. to that value which we hold highest at the moment of the choice.

You can easily see the principle at work by doing the test on yourself. Run through all the many choices you have made today and you will see that, whenever faced with a choice, it is always what you value highest at the moment of the choice that will tip the scale for you. It applies to everything - be it mundane things like choosing which socks to wear, up to choices which may have a profound effect on your life.

Whether others subjectively approve of your choices or not, that's a whole different ball game.

When e. g. Tolstoy gave away his wealth, he did not violate any "money is an objective value" principle, because such principle does not exist. When he made the choice, he personally did not attribute value to money any more. Simple as that.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I'm perfectly familiar with Rand's thought patterns which boil down to how she thinks "man" "ought to" live.

She criticizes others' subjective valuations and choices because they don fit her personal set, labeling those other choices as "irrational". .

In all fairness Xray, wouldn't you describe religion as 'irrational'? If we use science as the standard, and I really think deep down this is what Rand was alluding to, then man ought to live by science and not religion if he is to maximize the use of his superior brain.

[Alfonso Jones]

Adam wrote:

Ms. Xray's study guide to Ayn compiled by Adam Selene

I guess the study guide was complete - as well as empty.

Bill P