Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Equivalent fundamental characteristics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Let's say we have an entity with 50 characteristics. One of the characteristics is responsible for there being 10 others. Another one is responsible for another 10... and so on. So we have 5 fundamental characteristics responsible for the remaining 40. If we want to form a concept referring to this and other such entities, what do we pick as our fundamental defining characteristic?

 

I can't find anything in reality whose nature corresponds to my hypothetical scenario. I just invented it. What then, if anything, would this say about my fundamental method of thinking? Is this an example of rationalism?

Edited by LoBagola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like the difference between fundamental and essential. There are lots of concepts that have different fundamentals, even if a definition only captures a single defining factor, an essential. The concept "life" is the same for a biologist or a philosopher, but the definition is different for both. Or perhaps that's an example of Peikoff's idea of two definitions. I'm not sure. Yeah, you just invented it, but you seem awfully quick to say you can't think of an example. I hadn't considered this before, personally. Multiple fundamentals, or where two characteristics honestly seem equally important, may indicate that two entities are involved, or you discovered a new phenomena in your field of study.

 

Asking the question isn't rationalism, it depends on what you do about the question.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this some more recently. Your example of many possibilities could lead to you thinking that there is no definite method to determine what is essential or not. That error is Empiricism, as Peikoff describes it. The problem is something like "there are so many possibilities, how can I possibly be certain about the right answer or that an answer exists?" If you see 50 traits, you could throw your hands up in frustration or say there is no fact of the matter or at least no certainty. Objectivism deals with numerous traits via integration in concept formation or induction. Rationalism would be just saying there is an absolute answer, creating an abstraction for its own sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LaBagola, lest you be mislead concerning essence and fundamentality...

ITOE said:

Objectivism holds that the ESSENCE of a

concept IS that fundamental characteristic(s)

of its units on which the greatest number of

other characteristics depend, and which

distinguishes these units from all other

existents within the field of man's

knowledge.

Emphasis mine.

As long as you are able to find a characteristic that distinguishes the existent in question from the context you are differentiating from, then you will achieve the purpose of definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Let's say we have an entity with 50 characteristics. One of the characteristics is responsible for there being 10 others. Another one is responsible for another 10... and so on. So we have 5 fundamental characteristics responsible for the remaining 40. If we want to form a concept referring to this and other such entities, what do we pick as our fundamental defining characteristic?

 

I can't find anything in reality whose nature corresponds to my hypothetical scenario. I just invented it. What then, if anything, would this say about my fundamental method of thinking? Is this an example of rationalism?

 

How do you know that it has ONLY 50 characteristics?  How do you know that you won't discover another one later?

 

Why not search for more instances?  Why not learn about more characteristics?

 

Definitions are contextual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If we want to form a concept referring to this and other such entities, what do we pick as our fundamental defining characteristic?

Whichever is most important to the goal (whatever that may be) which led us to form that concept.

A chemist may call "organic matter" what a physicist may call a "deformable body" and a doctor may call a "human heart" and a politician may call a "tax-deductible donation" and a surgeon may call "work". All are different concepts, with different meanings, which may be used interchangeably to refer to the same thing; the one we should use is the one which best fits our purpose in thinking about it.

The same goes for concept-formation. When several traits are equally fundamental, metaphysically, we should select as cognitively "fundamental" whichever we care the most about.

What then, if anything, would this say about my fundamental method of thinking? Is this an example of rationalism?

No; it's a perfectly valid question which Rand implied and never explicitly answered. It doesn't seem like you spent more than sixty seconds on the hypothetical you framed it in, but the underlying question was rather insightful.

THIS question isn't, but the original one was good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...