Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Concepts & Definitions

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...