DarkReaver13 Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I wonder if anyone can clarify something for me. Take the concept of "man" (as in a human being). Ayn Rand says the definition is "rational animal", and the concept then includes all the characteristics which are common to human beings. What about mentally disabled people who cannot think rationally? Since "rational" is supposed to be part of the defining qualities of the concept, how can a non-rational animal (which has all the other less essential characteristics of a human being) still be classified as a human being? Also, one might say having two legs is part of the concept of a human being, but is this merely a generalisation? People can have one leg or no legs after all. The same goes for pretty much every characteristic you can think of. Although I agree with the general ideas of Objectivist epistemology, I can't help but think concepts are imprecise - since there may in fact be relatively few human beings which have all the characteristics associated with human beings. The problem seems to be fairly specific to biological concepts such as various species. The similarities of a particular species occur within various ranges; e.g. human beings might be between 1 and 9 feet tall (or thereabouts). Some characteristics may simply be non-present however. For example, some people may not have any hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Take the concept of "man" (as in a human being). Ayn Rand says the definition is "rational animal", and the concept then includes all the characteristics which are common to human beings. What about mentally disabled people who cannot think rationally? Since "rational" is supposed to be part of the defining qualities of the concept, how can a non-rational animal (which has all the other less essential characteristics of a human being) still be classified as a human being? "rational animal" means an animal with a rational faculty. Also, one might say having two legs is part of the concept of a human being, but is this merely a generalisation? People can have one leg or no legs after all. The same goes for pretty much every characteristic you can think of. Having two legs is not an essential characteristic of the concept man whereas having rational faculty is. I can't help but think concepts are imprecise - since there may in fact be relatively few human beings which have all the characteristics associated with human beings. All humans will have the essential characteristics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hey Don, you get to be a Fundamental Reading. Congratulations! Anyhow, the fundamental reading on the topic is Don Watkins' essay on Broken Units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.