Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DPW

Regulars
  • Posts

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    DPW got a reaction from Yes in The Fountainhead (1948)   
    Patrecia Neil (sp?) who played Dominique was quite good, I thought. And the guy who played Toohey was wonderful.
  2. Like
    DPW got a reaction from jacassidy2 in What is a floating abstraction?   
    They are meaningful, but the referents are imaginary. Concepts of imaginations are derivative concepts - they pertain to a (mental) re-arrangement of reality.



    Then you are unsure. But you phrased the question in exactly the right form: not, does it have a referent? But, does the referent exist, or is the thing it refers to an imagination or an error?

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify those points.
  3. Like
    DPW got a reaction from jacassidy2 in What is a floating abstraction?   
    Don't worry - you're asking the right questions, which means your confusion won't last very long if you remain honest and active minded. Let me take your questions one by one.


    First, let's be clear: the meaning of a concept is not its definition. The meaning of a concept is the things in reality it denotes, i.e., the meaning of a concept is its referents, including all their attributes. For example, your concept "book" means all books that have ever existed, that exist, and that will exist, including all their characteristics, even the one's you don't know and will never know. This is true even though you will only encounter a small number of books in your lifetime.
    You know the meaning of a concept if you can identify its referents.

    A definition is a condensation of all that information into a retainable "label" that enables you to hold your concepts by naming the essential distinctive attributes of the units they refer to. So, for example, I form the concept "book," and then retain that concept with a definition: "a written or printed work with pages bound along one side."

    Let me stress: the definition is not the meaning of the concept: the meaning of the concept is actual books. The definition is our way of retaining the concept.

    We can now answer your question: yes, even if we know the definition of a concept, we can still hold the concept as a floating abstraction. What, then, must one do to ensure that one's concepts aren't floating? Or, in your words:



    You have to re-trace the process of formulating the definition, as if you were the first one to formulate it. A definition we get from someone else, even a good one, is useless unless we go through the same steps the person who formed it did. A definition we get from someone else I like to call a "pointer" because all it does before we make it our own is point us toward its referents. It says, "By this concept, I mean those things." To grasp the concept, you have to actually look at "those things." Then you have to retrace the definition-formation process (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology if you have any questions on how to do that, particularly Chapter 5. Then, if you still have questions, raise them here.)



    There's nothing wrong with looking up definitions, but you make the point better than I ever could: if that is all you do, the concept can be nothing more than a memorized string of words. In order to make it a concept tag, i.e., in order for it to be a definition is the proper sense, you have to re-trace the process of formulating it.
  4. Like
    DPW got a reaction from jacassidy2 in What is a floating abstraction?   
    Not quite. If it's a floating abstraction, you don't know it. To know something is to see its connection to reality and its relationship to the rest of your knowledge. A floating abstraction is a concept or idea which is, in your mind, cut off from reality, i.e., which you have not reduced to its referents. It stands in your mind as a string of words disconnected from concretes.

    So, for example, if you say, "A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members," and then I ask you for an example, and you shrug, the concept "unit" is - for you - a floating abstraction.

    But let's take a more difficult case. Suppose you do give a couple examples: "This rock is a unit, when regarded as a member of a group of similar existents, such as those rocks over there. And this camera is a unit, when regarded as a member of a group of similar existents, such as your camera, or your shoe (since they both are members of the group "existents")." Then I ask you, "So what?" and you say, "I don't know. Ayn Rand said that's what units were." I would say it's still a floating abstraction, at least to a large extent. An idea, even a true one, cut off from the rest of one's knowledge [that is, not integrated] is necessarily floating. Anyone disagree with that?
×
×
  • Create New...