Definition of Man

[Brant Gaede]

Just as the concept "man" encompasses both sexes, cannot the concept "rational" encompass both rational and irrational giving us a broader idea of man via the definition? Hence, "Man the rational animal" doesn't necessarily mean he is always rational just that his mind can go either way depending on mental method. After all, one idea implies the other and we can't know one witout knowing both.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Just as the concept "man" encompasses both sexes, cannot the concept "rational" encompass both rational and irrational giving us a broader idea of man via the definition? Hence, "Man the rational animal" doesn't necessarily mean he is always rational just that his mind can go either way depending on mental method. After all, one idea implies the other and we can't know one witout knowing both.

--Brant

Pursuant to this, Rand said the following in ITOE (p. 44):

What is the common characteristic of all of man's varied activities? What is their root? What capacity enables man to perform them and thus distinguishes him from all other animals? When he grasps that man's distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason—he reaches the one and only valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind's knowledge to date: "A rational animal."

("Rational," in this context, does not mean "acting invariably in accordance with reason"; it means "possessing the faculty of reason."

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

Just as the concept "man" encompasses both sexes, cannot the concept "rational" encompass both rational and irrational giving us a broader idea of man via the definition? Hence, "Man the rational animal" doesn't necessarily mean he is always rational just that his mind can go either way depending on mental method. After all, one idea implies the other and we can't know one witout knowing both.

--Brant

For a definition of Man see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SCIENCE96/ which contains the 1996 version of the Genome Map and pointers to the 1999 update. One can see the contents of each of the Chromosomes 1-22, X, Y. This is a definition by essentials. What can be more essential than the biotic blue print which not only describes our structure but leads to its construction. The genes through MRNA and TRNA produce the very proteins of which we are constructed. If you wish to know what we are see how we are built.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Are you going to behave? I keep releasing your posts, which I find to be a tedious chore. I would vastly prefer that you govern your own behavior and respect the house rules because you want to.

I assure you, in light of your erudition, you will get plenty of attention. And good attention, too. There is no need to play the gross card. That only works in entertainment for adolescents.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Pursuant to this, Rand said the following in ITOE (p. 44):

What is the common characteristic of all of man's varied activities? What is their root? What capacity enables man to perform them and thus distinguishes him from all other animals? When he grasps that man's distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason—he reaches the one and only valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind's knowledge to date: "A rational animal."

("Rational," in this context, does not mean "acting invariably in accordance with reason"; it means "possessing the faculty of reason."

Bill P (Alfonso)

"he reaches the one and only valid definition of man"

I couldn't disagree more. I would love to ask her what she meant by 'valid'. I suppose she must have meant 'valuable' in some sense and of course then it becomes subjective because one naturally asks "valuable to whom?". When we define anything it is an attempt to direct attention towards certain characteristics which we have noticed and seem the most important. Obviously there is much room for variation, some notice things that others don't and we may not agree on what is important and what isn't. The example of "man as a featherless biped" is a good example of a definition that focuses on what I call some rather unimportant characteristics. Korzybski defines man as a 'time-binder', which means he has the ability to "bind" time in the sense of learning from previous generations through language, particularly applied mathematics. This obviously includes 'rationality'.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose she must have meant 'valuable' in some sense...

GS,

You suppose wrong.

... and of course then it becomes subjective because...

It doesn't matter what follows because you got the premise wrong. You are talking about someone else's ideas, not Rand's.

Valid means verifiable by observation, or built on concepts that boil down to observation (without contradiction). Observation means a mind's process of integrating sensory input.

Value comes after identification, not before (Rand's consistently misunderstood is-ought statement notwithstanding). You have to know what you evaluate before you can evaluate it rationally.

Check out ostensive definitions if this seems confusing.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Pursuant to this, Rand said the following in ITOE (p. 44):

What is the common characteristic of all of man's varied activities? What is their root? What capacity enables man to perform them and thus distinguishes him from all other animals? When he grasps that man's distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason—he reaches the one and only valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind's knowledge to date: "A rational animal."

("Rational," in this context, does not mean "acting invariably in accordance with reason"; it means "possessing the faculty of reason."

Bill P (Alfonso)

"he reaches the one and only valid definition of man"

I couldn't disagree more. I would love to ask her what she meant by 'valid'. I suppose she must have meant 'valuable' in some sense and of course then it becomes subjective because one naturally asks "valuable to whom?". When we define anything it is an attempt to direct attention towards certain characteristics which we have noticed and seem the most important. Obviously there is much room for variation, some notice things that others don't and we may not agree on what is important and what isn't. The example of "man as a featherless biped" is a good example of a definition that focuses on what I call some rather unimportant characteristics. Korzybski defines man as a 'time-binder', which means he has the ability to "bind" time in the sense of learning from previous generations through language, particularly applied mathematics. This obviously includes 'rationality'.

GS -

I strongly suggest acquiring a basic familiarity with Rand's writing. Given your areas of interest as expressed here, reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) would be an excellent step.

That way you if you want to disagree with Rand, you can at least disagree with what she said, and not end up taking something out of context or assuming that she MUST mean what you mean, even though to make that assumption makes things seem inconsistent or hard to understand.

This is especially appropriate given that the context here is OL, not Korzybski-L.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[tjohnson]

[

GS -

I strongly suggest acquiring a basic familiarity with Rand's writing. Given your areas of interest as expressed here, reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) would be an excellent step.

That way you if you want to disagree with Rand, you can at least disagree with what she said, and not end up taking something out of context or assuming that she MUST mean what you mean, even though to make that assumption makes things seem inconsistent or hard to understand.

This is especially appropriate given that the context here is OL, not Korzybski-L.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Excuse me, but did she not say "he reaches the one and only valid definition of man"? This is what she said and I am disagreeing with it.

[tjohnson]

Valid means verifiable by observation

Fine, well "man is a featherless biped" is verifiable by observation so why is the other definition the "one and only valid" one?

[Dragonfly]

GS and Bob are right. The definition of "man" as "the rational animal" is certainly not the only valid definition. It isn't even a very good definition, the definition in terms of the genome is far more essential.

[Brant Gaede]

Instead of defining "man" why not just say "Man is"? Then we can merely be descriptive. As for "Man is the rational animal," that seems to be a good working definition for it focuses on what is important and accessible to people generally, not something on the obscure, most basic level. Looking at man physically, it's his upright posture, the construction of his foot, that is most distinctive and differentiating.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fine, well "man is a featherless biped" is verifiable by observation so why is the other definition the "one and only valid" one?

GS,

If you leave out survival as a standard (and the whole Objectivist conceptual chain), you can do what you just did. The fact that "man is a featherless biped" is actually verifiable by observation. That doesn't make it a definition, though.

Your criticism implies that verifying by observation is the only component of a definition in Objectivism. By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

This is called the stolen concept fallacy in Objectivism.

Why not invest some time and learn these things instead of being quick to criticize what you don't know according to incorrect standards? I think the reason your approach bugs me so much is that you are obviously intelligent, so I am curious to see what you would say if you actually knew what you were talking about. It is easy for me to correct your primary errors (time and time again) when you make incorrect claims and speculations about Objectivist meanings, but I get bored with it quickly. That's why I usually stop. Also, it is a pity to see such a fine intellect used in such a lazy manner.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Fine, well "man is a featherless biped" is verifiable by observation so why is the other definition the "one and only valid" one?

GS,

If you leave out survival as a standard (and the whole Objectivist conceptual chain), you can do what you just did. The fact that "man is a featherless biped" is actually verifiable by observation. That doesn't make it a definition, though.

Your criticism implies that verifying by observation is the only component of a definition in Objectivism. By doing that, you really expose the fact that you don't know what definition means in Objectivism.

This is called the stolen concept fallacy in Objectivism.

Why not invest some time and learn these things instead of being quick to criticize what you don't know according to incorrect standards? I think the reason your approach bugs me so much is that you are obviously intelligent, so I am curious to see what you would say if you actually knew what you were talking about. It is easy for me to correct your primary errors (time and time again) when you make incorrect claims and speculations about Objectivist meanings, but I get bored with it quickly. That's why I usually stop. Also, it is a pity to see such a fine intellect used in such a lazy manner.

I'm curious as to whether the stolen concept fallacy applies if the "thief" doesn't know he's stealing?

--Brant

[Mike11]

Feel free to call me out on my ignorance here, I'd actually like to know more context pertaining to what follows.

From my reading of Rand and Peikoff hat a huge I always get a strong impression that a huge degree of rationalization is happening. As I said in the "Is Objectivism a Philosophy?" thread its like she had a crude Nietzshean position and than back tracked from there building shaky argument after shaky argument to cover it up. I'm not going to make any general attack on "Man Qua Man" here but criticize how it operates. I'm going to start with an analogy from another part of the movement, which I understand I do not know well enough to really make a solid claim, and then relate it to this issue.

There is a tendency in Objectivism to deny the rights of those living in non western societies. Her ideas tended to stereotype other societies as primitive and barbaric while ignoring strengths they had over the West and also denied these societies had acknowledged property rights, which is absurd. Her writings about other cultures, like the "primitive arab nomads" or the moral removal of native americans, seemed to be drawn from a Victorian Imperialist play book.

We can, I think, all agree that despite the ideology's opposition Objectivism has always had a strong subconscious desire to dominate the 'inferior'. I wonder how much of the views in Objectivism were about justifying an Imperialist mentality. I mean the ARI still praises Columbus for giving Reality! Reason! and Rights! to all those millions he helped exterminate and enslave.

What capacity enables man to perform them and thus distinguishes him from all other animals?

Why does she feel the need to find this distinction? Why not find another, far more accurate definition of "Man"? Honestly a lot of this just seems like, "I like meat but those "Viro" evil doers ar depressing, how can I rationalze?"

I'm not saying Rand was wrong just that a bit of criticism along these lines may not be a bad thing.

[Brant Gaede]

Feel free to call me out on my ignorance here, I'd actually like to know more context pertaining to what follows.

From my reading of Rand and Peikoff hat a huge I always get a strong impression that a huge degree of rationalization is happening. As I said in the "Is Objectivism a Philosophy?" thread its like she had a crude Nietzshean position and than back tracked from there building shaky argument after shaky argument to cover it up. I'm not going to make any general attack on "Man Qua Man" here but criticize how it operates. I'm going to start with an analogy from another part of the movement, which I understand I do not know well enough to really make a solid claim, and then relate it to this issue.

There is a tendency in Objectivism to deny the rights of those living in non western societies. Her ideas tended to stereotype other societies as primitive and barbaric while ignoring strengths they had over the West and also denied these societies had acknowledged property rights, which is absurd. Her writings about other cultures, like the "primitive arab nomads" or the moral removal of native americans, seemed to be drawn from a Victorian Imperialist play book.

We can, I think, all agree that despite the ideology's opposition Objectivism has always had a strong subconscious desire to dominate the 'inferior'. I wonder how much of the views in Objectivism were about justifying an Imperialist mentality. I mean the ARI still praises Columbus for giving Reality! Reason! and Rights! to all those millions he helped exterminate and enslave.

What capacity enables man to perform them and thus distinguishes him from all other animals?

Why does she feel the need to find this distinction? Why not find another, far more accurate definition of "Man"? Honestly a lot of this just seems like, "I like meat but those "Viro" evil doers ar depressing, how can I rationalze?"

I'm not saying Rand was wrong just that a bit of criticism along these lines may not be a bad thing.

Your last sentence is silly and disingenuous considering what you wrote before.

Societies have no rights, although Rand had a somewhat different view.

Are you saying Nietzsche had a more refined view of Nietzschean man than what Rand ended up with in her novels?

I personally eschew the idea of a "noble soul" having "reverence for itself." It seems to lead to passivity and posturing amongst some Objectivists I have known. I am quite sensitive to my own inner state and spent a lot of effort fixing things up in there. This means I now don't have to waste much time in self contemplation, which I find boring. I'm too engaged in the world. The most liberating thing I did--it actually took decades for initial lack of strength of focus--is eschew almost all ideas of revenge or getting back for real, manufactured or perceived wrongs. I just let the bad boys stew in their own juice and go out and try to make more money or whatnot. "Living well is the best revenge."

I do think there is Rand the philosopher and Rand the novelist and that the philosophy is the add-on. The tension between the two is profound leading to Objectivist dogmatism for the novels are what they are, static and immutable, and therefore the philosophy of Galt's Speech has to be the same.

--Brant

Edited May 11, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

In forming a concept, Rand stated that an almost infinity of observations was involved. With that as the background, here is an oversimplification of the concept's construction:

Existence as a bunch of entities and features of the same (including components, relationships, actions and so forth).

Life, which is temporary on an individual level. The continued existence of an individual life is conditional to self-generated action.

Animal, which has mobility and some other features among which is pre-programmed behavior, which is its main feature for providing continued existence (survival).

Man, who has all of the above plus reason. In man's case, reason is his main feature for providing continued existence (survival).

So you see that Rand's conceptual view of man came from building it up from metaphysics. I happen to agree that at the start she had an emotional view of man that was similar to Nietzshe's, but on the conceptual level, she is in a whole other ballgame.

I happen to think her view of man is oversimplified (and I do not mean my own brief description above), although it is not wrong. The part that is right is right. I simply find it incomplete.

To answer the genome thing Dragonfly mentioned, this goes too far in the opposite direction. A genome is not a feature for ensuring continued existence. Instead it is a highly specific, but inseparable component of human beings—a code of organic developmental instructions so to speak. Trying to define a human being by its genome is like trying to define an army by its recruitment, inventory orders and battle plans. Is it possible for a human being to not have a genome? Is it possible to have a human genome without a human? None of that makes any sense if applied to reality.

To claim that a genome is a definition of anything is to use a different definition of definition than is used in normal language, albeit it does set up a form of categorization par excellence. In other words, it is a scientific definition of one feature (DNA). It is certainly different than what is meant as a definition of the concept of the entity in Objectivism, which is a philosophical definiton (meaning observable and understandable by all normal people without specialized knowledge or instruments).

It is not only possible for each definition of man to be correct within each respective context, that actually is the way it works. Philosophy is considered more fundamental because you have to have normal understanding first. Otherwise you can't get to specialized understanding. To use an overworked metaphor, you have to know how to crawl before you can run.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

The genomic definition of man is similar to the definition of water in terms of its atomic structure H2O. From that structure follow all the properties of water, it is the most essential definition, in contrast to for example the definition as the liquid stuff that we find in seas, lakes or raindrops. In a similar way all the properties of a human being, including the capacity of rational thinking, follow from its genetic code. It is the key that can transform a single cell into a complete human being. Now it may not be the most practical definition in daily life, outside a scientific environment, but if we're talking about the "one and only valid definition of man", it is the scientific definition. Now I do not think that it is the only valid definition, but it is the best one in terms of essential characteristics. The drawback of the rational animal definition is that it is a contingent definition. A good distinguishing characteristic (like rationality in this case) is not necessarily the most essential characteristic.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Rational or not, man is a mortal animal. "No one wants to be who they are. I don't care who it is. All we get is the life we're given, the time and place, a handful of raw potential and a few years to make something of it." (The Good Walk Alone)

Scientific question: Does the human genome reveal any difference between man and woman? If not, I have to tear up half of everything I've written and two-thirds of everything I think I know about life.

[Brant Gaede]

Rational or not, man is a mortal animal. "No one wants to be who they are. I don't care who it is. All we get is the life we're given, the time and place, a handful of raw potential and a few years to make something of it." (The Good Walk Alone)

Scientific question: Does the human genome reveal any difference between man and woman? If not, I have to tear up half of everything I've written and two-thirds of everything I think I know about life.

Woman smarter! Oh, yes ...!

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Rational or not, man is a mortal animal. "No one wants to be who they are. I don't care who it is. All we get is the life we're given, the time and place, a handful of raw potential and a few years to make something of it." (The Good Walk Alone)

Scientific question: Does the human genome reveal any difference between man and woman? If not, I have to tear up half of everything I've written and two-thirds of everything I think I know about life.

Wolf -

What is the relevance of "mortal" here? There being no immortal animals, it doesn't do anything to differentiate humans from any other animals. It adds nothing. So you are left with "animal" - which is very inadequate as a definition.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf -

What is the relevance of "mortal" here? There being no immortal animals, it doesn't do anything to differentiate humans from any other animals. It adds nothing. So you are left with "animal" - which is very inadequate as a definition.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Our apprehension of mortality is what separates us epistemologically and morally from the animals, I think. Lower animals don't have religion, a fantasy creed of immortality. I know it's redundant to emphasize our mortality. Just like to see it front and center in the discussion. The brevity of life gives impetus to our choice of work, ambition, mating, clanship, recovery after repeated blundering, tempered esteem for self and others, family values and grief.

W.

[Alfonso Jones]

Wolf -

What is the relevance of "mortal" here? There being no immortal animals, it doesn't do anything to differentiate humans from any other animals. It adds nothing. So you are left with "animal" - which is very inadequate as a definition.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Our apprehension of mortality is what separates us epistemologically and morally from the animals, I think. Lower animals don't have religion, a fantasy creed of immortality. I know it's redundant to emphasize our mortality. Just like to see it front and center in the discussion. The brevity of life gives impetus to our choice of work, ambition, mating, clanship, recovery after repeated blundering, tempered esteem for self and others, family values and grief.

W.

I don't agree with your first statement (Do you really think that is the primary distinctive of humans - the essential distinguishing characteristic - the KNOWLEDGE/APPREHENSION OF MORTALITY???). If you had said something about the need to make conscious choices in order to survive and prosper, that would be better, I think.

I am led to muse about Rand's famous hypothetical immortal robot - are you thinking of that? Her point was that it was the fact that the robot's survival and prosperity (in the broadest sense of those words!) were guaranteed meant that "morals" in her sense made no sense for the robot. I don't think there's a relationship between that and what you are saying. (I mention it for completeness and to see if we have something in this area which is a source of confusion.)

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't agree with your first statement (Do you really think that is the primary distinctive of humans - the essential distinguishing characteristic - the KNOWLEDGE/APPREHENSION OF MORTALITY???).

Yes, I do. When a deer is noiselessly shot and falls down dead, the other deer just stand there, no understanding or concern for what just happened. More importantly, it takes time to explain to human children what danger, illness, and death are, unless they've witnessed it or suffered personally. Humanity is developmental IMO.

W.

[tjohnson]

Yes, I do. When a deer is noiselessly shot and falls down dead, the other deer just stand there, no understanding or concern for what just happened.

I don't believe this is the case. I think animals, like deer learn to avoid hunters and associate them with danger.

[tjohnson]

Our apprehension of mortality is what separates us epistemologically and morally from the animals, I think. Lower animals don't have religion, a fantasy creed of immortality. I know it's redundant to emphasize our mortality. Just like to see it front and center in the discussion. The brevity of life gives impetus to our choice of work, ambition, mating, clanship, recovery after repeated blundering, tempered esteem for self and others, family values and grief.

Animals don't have creeds and religion because they don't have sufficiently evolved language. Our language function is mainly in the cerebral cortex which humans have proportionally far more of than any other animal - more than 50% of the brain I think. This is the main source of our intelligence and ability to know about future events, like our own death, and plan for them.