Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Selene]

Person X defines truth as that which is.

I think person X is confusing "truth" with "fact". Well, he may of course give his own definition, but I think it's not very useful.

Okay.

Therefore, one criteria that we are stipulating to is that a definition shall be useful yes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uh-oh, defining man as an insect may be in contradiction with the common definition of "insect" when we point to "man" in an ostensive definition, but what about "truth", "egoism", "sacrifice", "value"? Which definitions of these concepts are true and which are false?

Dragonfly,

That's easy.

In one sense, it's all ostensive. Concepts need referents to have true definitions. (Don't forget that in Objectivism there are mental referrents, concepts themselve being such.)

Any concept that is defined as denoting something that exists when there is no referent for it (i.e, the referent cannot be observed in some manner) is false.

Here's another standard. To use Objectivist language, concepts are made up of 3 things: differences, similarities and integration, all of which are measured in some manner. If you devise a definition to denote a similarity where a difference is observed and vice-versa, you have a false definition and go off into Orwellian Newspeak where thought-control becomes a viable tool for dictators and cult leaders. ("Truth is falsehood," "egoism is unselfish," "sacrifice is gain," "value is worthlessness," etc., to use Newspeak on your examples.)

Also, there is the kind of contextless definition you complain about where there is no genus (the one true definition). That's a false definition simply by virtue of not meeting the minimum requirement of definition.

There's more. There's the famous stolen concept wherein the genus (or part of it) is used to arrive at the definition, then eliminated from it in a later definition. That's a false definition.

For a definition to be true, the context must be used as a standard.

I won't even go off into formal logic where true and false are part of the word game, or in the Boolean logic used in computer programs, or in the Popperian universe where only false exists as a certainty and true always a speculation, etc. etc., etc.

Need I go on?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Need I go on?

Well, you might still tell me which definitions of the concepts "truth", "egoism", "sacrifice", "value" are true and which are false. Are Rand's definitions true and the common dictionary definitions wrong? Because that is what is often suggested. (BTW, in the common definition sacrifice is gain.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

It depends on the standard (and genus) used in defining truth itself. For example, you stated "common definition" as one such standard for "sacrifice," wherein "sacrifice" is a synonym with price paid. Using that standard, I agree that the Newspeak I mentioned is not Newspeak. (btw - There is more than one "common definition" for sacrifice.)

I was using the Objectivist meaning—and another "common definition" (look in any dictionary)—wherein "sacrifice" means loss or relinquishment of a value. In that case, the Newspeak is Newspeak.

You want more? OK.

Look at Rand's first-statement definition of truth (you can read it here), among other statements, just like in any "common" dictionary:

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality.

How does that differ in any meaningful way from, say, the Free Online Dictionary's first-statement definition (you can read it here)?:

1. the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual

Rand says truth is based on "facts of reality" and the Free Online Dictionary says "genuine, actual, or factual."

So?

They both mean the same thing.

I think way too much is being made over way too little regarding Objectivist meanings. I always did think that in these discussions (incidentally, the sin is on both sides). There are some really strange ideas by Rand that need some serious work, and some really great ideas that need serious consideration. Nitpicking over nothing just to say Rand was wrong or right is a distraction without much intellectual value.

Michael

[merjet]

Are Rand's definitions true and the common dictionary definitions wrong? Because that is what is often suggested. (BTW, in the common definition sacrifice is gain.)

According to whom? Here are three online dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice

http://www.yourdictionary.com/sacrifice

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrifice

All use loss and none use gain.

[jeffrey smith]

You want more? OK.

Look at Rand's first-statement definition of truth (you can read it here), among other statements, just like in any "common" dictionary:

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality.

How does that differ in any meaningful way from, say, the Free Online Dictionary's first-statement definition (you can read it here)?:

1. the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual

Rand says truth is based on "facts of reality" and the Free Online Dictionary says "genuine, actual, or factual."

So?

They both mean the same thing.

Michael

They don't actually mean the same thing: the referent is different. In Rand's definition, truth resides in the mind that observes and recognizes the fact of reality. In the FOD's definition, truth is a property of the fact of reality which is being observed.

Now, in general, this is merely six of one and half a dozen of the other; but there are times when the difference might be important.

My Webster's (Seventh New Collegiate) gives longer, more detailed definitions that either align with the FOD or refer back to the archaic meanings of the word, as a synonym for loyalty and faithfulness.

And as a final note, more for entertainment value than anything else: the word "tree" is actually derived from the same root as "truth": it gives the lineage illustrating through Sanskrit daruna = hard (and from which it would seem words of the during/endure family also derive) derived from Sanskrit daru = wood.

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

Are Rand's definitions true and the common dictionary definitions wrong? Because that is what is often suggested. (BTW, in the common definition sacrifice is gain.)

According to whom? Here are three online dictionaries:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/sacrifice

http://www.yourdicti...y.com/sacrifice

http://www.merriam-w...onary/sacrifice

All use loss and none use gain.

This relates to this discussion of sacrifice. Additionally, GS's excellent observation about Korzybski's "timestamp subscript" might apply here.

ARTFL Project: Webster Dictionary, 1913

Check out our new site which features an updated interface for Webster's Dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, the French-English Dictionary, and the French Verb Conjugator. Searching for: sacrifice

Found 3 hit(s). Sacrifice (Page: 1266) Sac"ri*fice (?; 277), n. [OE. sacrifise, sacrifice, F. sacrifice, fr. L. sacrificium; sacer sacer + facere to make. See Sacred, and Fact.]

1. The offering of anything to God, or to a god; consecratory rite.

Great pomp, and

sacrifice

, and praises loud, To Dagon.

Milton.

2. Anything consecrated and offered to God, or to a divinity; an immolated victin, or an offering of any kind, laid upon an altar, or otherwise presented in the way of religious thanksgiving, atonement, or conciliation.

Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood Of human

sacrifice

.

Milton.

My life, if thou preserv's my life, Thy

sacrifice

shall be.

Addison.

3. Destruction or surrender of anything for the sake of something else; devotion of some desirable object in behalf of a higher object, or to a claim deemed more pressing; hence, also, the thing so devoted or given up; as, the sacrifice of interest to pleasure, or of pleasure to interest.

4. A sale at a price less than the cost or the actual value. [Tradesmen's Cant] Burnt sacrifice. See Burnt offering, under Burnt. -- Sacrifice hit (Baseball), in batting, a hit of such a kind that the batter loses his chance of tallying, but enables one or more who are on bases to get home or gain a base.

Sacrifice (Page: 1266) Sac"ri*fice (?; 277), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Sacrificed (); p. pr. & vb. n. Sacrificing ().] [From Sacrifice, n.: cf. F. sacrifier, L. sacrificare; sacer sacred, holy + -ficare (only in comp.) to make. See -fy.]

1. To make an offering of; to consecrate or present to a divinity by way of expiation or propitiation, or as a token acknowledgment or thanksgiving; to immolate on the altar of God, in order to atone for sin, to procure favor, or to express thankfulness; as, to sacrifice an ox or a sheep.

Oft

sacrificing

bullock, lamb, or kid.

Milton.

2. Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering.

Condemned to

sacrifice

his childish years To babbling ignorance, and to empty fears.

Prior.

The Baronet had

sacrificed

a large sum . . . for the sake of . . . making this boy his heir.

G. Eliot.

3. To destroy; to kill. Johnson.

4. To sell at a price less than the cost or the actual value. [Tradesmen's Cant]

Sacrifice (Page: 1266) Sac"ri*fice, v. i. To make offerings to God, or to a deity, of things consumed on the altar; to offer sacrifice.

O teacher, some great mischief hath befallen To that meek man, who well had

sacrificed

.

Milton.

Adam

[Selene]

1913 and the definition of truth

Truth (Page: 1547) Truth (?), n.; pl. Truths (#). [OE. treuthe, trouthe, treowpe, AS. treów. See True; cf. Troth, Betroth.]

1. The quality or being true; as: -- (a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been; or shall be. (B) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the like.

Plows, to go true, depend much on the

truth

of the ironwork.

Mortimer.

© Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness.

Alas! they had been friends in youth, But whispering tongues can poison

truth

.

Coleridge.

(d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from falsehood; veracity.

If this will not suffice, it must appear That malice bears down

truth

.

Shak.

2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality.

Speak ye every man the

truth

to his neighbor.

Zech. viii. 16.

I long to know the

truth

here of at large.

Shak.

The

truth

depends on, or is only arrived at by, a legitimate deduction from all the facts which are truly material.

Coleridge.

3. A true thing; a verified fact; a true statement or proposition; an established principle, fixed law, or the like; as, the great truths of morals.

Even so our boasting . . . is found a

truth

.

2 Cor. vii. 14.

4. Righteousness; true religion.

Grace and

truth

came by Jesus Christ.

John i. 17.

Sanctify them through thy

truth

; thy word is

truth

.

John xvii. 17.

In truth, in reality; in fact. -- Of a truth, in reality; certainly. -- To do truth, to practice what God commands.

He that

doeth truth

cometh to the light.

John iii. 21.

Truth (Page: 1547) Truth, v. t. To assert as true; to declare. [R.]

Had they [the ancients] dreamt this, they would have

truthed

it heaven.

Ford.

[tjohnson]

All this discussion about definitions! I think we are forgetting perhaps the most important thing about definitions and defining in general -> the purpose of it is so that we know what each other is talking about. People who study and live by objectivism may use different terms to describe different things than people who study and live by general semantics, for example. But the "things" are the same in either case. I don't care if you use 'spoon' to represent what I use 'fork' to represent as long as I am aware of that. I may think it's strange but I can deal with it. Dictionaries are used to facilitate this process but the humans using them are ultimately responsible for making sure the communication process works - both talking and listening.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

You really are starting to get a handle on Objectivism. Yet there is a caveat. According to Rand, communication is the second epistemological priority of concepts (and language and definitions by extension). The first priority is to mentally organize our knowledge.

Michael

[merjet]

Daniel Barnes, if you are lurking, please tell us your answer to your alleged poser about the two people arguing about the "true" definition of "puppy."

A. Both true

B. Both false

C. Only one is true (which one?)

D. None of the above (why?)

[tjohnson]

GS,

You really are starting to get a handle on Objectivism. Yet there is a caveat. According to Rand, communication is the second epistemological priority of concepts (and language and definitions by extension). The first priority is to mentally organize our knowledge.

Michael

Is this something which is independent of language, this "mental organizing"?

[merjet]

Is this something which is independent of language, this "mental organizing"?

No, saying it with different words than MSK, the first priority is for a person to mentally organize his/her own knowledge. The distinction is between an individual and inter-personal communication.

[Dragonfly]

Are Rand's definitions true and the common dictionary definitions wrong? Because that is what is often suggested. (BTW, in the common definition sacrifice is gain.)

According to whom? Here are three online dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice

http://www.yourdictionary.com/sacrifice

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrifice

All use loss and none use gain.

Jesus, what a dumb argument! That they don't contain the word gain, does not mean that they are not about gain!

the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacrifice

a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

Collins Dictionary of the English language:

A surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil.

Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable, but the essential element is that it is a deliberate action to gain something that has more value than that what is given up. When I lose my queen (and probably the game) in a chess game due to a blunder, that is called a loss; when I deliberately give up my queen to get an advantage in the game or even force a mate, I don't call that a loss but a sacrifice. Another good example is when Roark refuses to accept a magnificent commission that is offered to him because the customer wants some changes to the façade of the building. He sacrifices a lot of money and career opportunities because artistic integrity is more important to him - as Roark said: That was the most selfish thing you’ve ever seen a man do."

[merjet]

Jesus, what a dumb argument! That they don't contain the word gain, does not mean that they are not about gain!

Mostly ad hominem.

Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable, ...

Thank you for undercutting your earlier claim "in the common definition sacrifice is gain."

Edited November 23, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable, ...

Thank you for undercutting your earlier claim "in the common definition sacrifice is gain."

You still don't get it, do you? Let me spell it out then: sacrifice is a deliberate loss to gain something of more value. Of course my earlier claim is just a short-hand version of that statement. Do you always look at single words only without understanding the meaning of a sentence? Then an expression like "less is more" must also be beyond your understanding.

[anthony]

Merlin J., to be fair, Dragonfly wrote "Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable"...

But then goes on to specify (in my words) ...for something MORE valuable".

So it's no longer a sacrifice. It then becomes a rationally self-interested action.

The chess analogy is a good one, that demonstrates the false duality of meaning of this word; so is the notorious Biblical one of Abraham, preparing to sacrifice his son to God, until he gets a reprieve from the old monster. God was his higher value.

The 'accepted wisdom',IMO, is that sacrifice is the relinquishment of some indeterminate value, in favor of something else, also of indeterminate value. The latter usually of an altruistic/deistic bent.

I believe that Rand was the first to identify,and measure, Value - stripped of all its baggage.

So her definition, removed from all popular, or religious connotations, is the one that must stand (giving up a higher value,for a lesser one'). It also fits the dictionary definitions.

Fundamentally, yes: if a definition cannot be true or false, then a concept cannot be true or false, and then a philosophy can't be true or false.

And then we don't have a leg to stand on. (LOL. Says he, trying not to shoot himself in the foot!)

Tony

[tjohnson]

Is this something which is independent of language, this "mental organizing"?

No, saying it with different words than MSK, the first priority is for a person to mentally organize his/her own knowledge. The distinction is between an individual and inter-personal communication.

Hmmm...it seems to me that language only has meaning in a group setting. One person can not have a language exclusive to himself can he? What would be the point? I don't see how someone can organize their knowledge without having a language already at their disposal unless you are speaking about perceptual knowledge.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me spell it out then: sacrifice is a deliberate loss to gain something of more value.

Dragonfly,

True, but with the caveat that this is not the only meaning in common use. Unqualified forfeiture, i.e., loss and only loss, is another common meaning.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Fundamentally, yes: if a definition cannot be true or false, then a concept cannot be true or false, and then a philosophy can't be true or false.

And then we don't have a leg to stand on. (LOL. Says he, trying not to shoot himself in the foot!)

Now I'm really confused Can you give me an example of a true concept and a false one? I know I have said this before but AFAIK ' a concept' is something we imagine in our brain. So if I say "picture a beach with white sand" what you imagine in you mind is your concept of what I said. So language and concepts are intricately related.

[merjet]

Dragonfly, you still don't get it, do you? I will spell it out for you. I don't need you to tell me what sacrifice is. My post #130 was a response to yours, which was an innuendo that Rand's concept of sacrifice is wrong, false, or even meaningless (which you have asserted on OL).

Do sacrificial victims put to death "gain something of more value"?

In my view sacrifice has elements of both gain and loss -- by comparing different things. A sacrifice bunt is a good example.

Why do you so often feel the need to insult?

[merjet]

Hmmm...it seems to me that language only has meaning in a group setting. One person can not have a language exclusive to himself can he? What would be the point?

Do you ever think alone and in words?

Change "himself" to "herself" and "he" to "she" and then think of Xray.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

Do sacrificial victims put to death "gain something of more value"?

Again you don't understand it. When we're talking about loss and gain this refers to the person who sacrifies, not the person who is sacrified.

In my view sacrifice has elements of both gain and loss -- by comparing different things.

Did I say anything else? The idea behind a sacrifice is always to gain more than you lose. That it won't always succeed is not relevant, it's the intention that counts.

A sacrifice bunt is a good example.

I didn't know that term, so I had to look it up. I understand that it has something to do with baseball, of which I know nothing. But I suppose that it is done on purpose to get some advantage in the game.

Why do you so often feel the need to insult?

Don't you see the difference between attacking a bad argument and attacking a person?

[BaalChatzaf]

Let me spell it out then: sacrifice is a deliberate loss to gain something of more value.

Dragonfly,

True, but with the caveat that this is not the only meaning in common use. Unqualified forfeiture, i.e., loss and only loss, is another common meaning.

Michael

I am not so sure of that. Let's examine the uses

1. Religious context: cook a cow now, receive a reward from God later on.

2. Chess: let a valuable piece be taken now, make a strategic gain or get a better capture later on.

3. Warfare: Soldier sacrifices his life and saves the lives of many comrades. Think of a soldier falling on the grenade to save many of his buddies. The latter is a gain, although not to the soldier who makes the sacrifice. Presumable the soldier who makes the sacrifice holds the lives of his buddies in higher esteem than his own.

I don't see uses of the word "sacrifice" meaning total renounciation with no benefit to the one who sacrifices.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Again you don't understand it. When we're talking about loss and gain this refers to the person who sacrifies, not the person who is sacrified.

Again you don't understand it. When you are talking about loss and gain this refers to the person who sacrifies, not the person who is sacrified. When I talk about sacrifice the person who is sacrified is relevant.

Don't you see the difference between attacking a bad argument and attacking a person?

Yes, I do. And there is a thin, porous line between them.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Merlin Jetton