Well, I think it’s merely a question of what we need to differentiate the units against. A man made fact is still a fact so if gay marriage becomes legal then it becomes necessary to adjust our differentia to properly differentiate the units. It’s all a question of what the context demands we do to keep the units clearly differentiated.
I see what you are saying. Some sort of actual change would have to happen (change in regulation..etc.) to invalidate “Bachelors are men who have no wife”.
While it’s reasonable to imagine such a change in man-made regulation (as opposed to ice sinking in water), imagining by itself still isn’t enough to invalidate “Bachelors are men who have no wife”, actual regulation change have to take place.
And if actual change happens, the invalidation of that definition can then be appropriately said to have happened on contextual ground.
But I wouldn’t say concepts are formed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest contrast between existents. The purpose of forming a concept is to achieve a unit (universal) perspective on a set of existents. It’s the purpose of a definition to keep the concepts clearly organized in your head- the genus tells you the wider concept to which the defined concept belongs and differentia distinguishes precisely which units of the genus the defined concept is referring to.
Point taken. Concept’s main function is to achieve unit perspective on a set of existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive activities can be achieved. Definitions are what helps to clearly keep the boundary between concepts.
The concept ‘bachelor’ isn’t merely subjectively important. There are real, objective reasons for having such a concept. Bachelors tend to party it up, have awesome pads, are available for marriage, etc. It is incredibly useful to have the concept regardless of people’s opinions on marriage. With respect to the fundamentality of the essential characteristic (unmarried) vs. intent, I think you have cause and effect reversed. The reason people intend to differentiate between married and unmarried men is because being unmarried is an essential characteristic- it gives rise to other characteristics and actions which make the concept useful in the first place.
Here’s a better explanation of what I’m trying to say, from ITOE (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html):
It is incredibly useful to have the concept. I was thinking along the line that if the vast majority of people didn’t really care about the quality of been unmarried, they would just call such a man “unmarried man” instead of bothering to make up a whole new term.
As for why people would care, I see what you mean about people caring/valuing the quality of been unmarried objectively. When I said people valued the quality of been unmarried subjectively, I completely forgot about that whole “Subjective vs Objective vs Intrinsic” thing. People don’t value been “unmarried” subjectively just because. They value been “unmarried” at the very least due to the fact that such man is available for marriage. Such valuation based on the availability for marriage or any other facet of reality (partying/pads..etc.) would place the concern on Objective ground instead of Subjective.
Given that case, it does make sense then that Rule of Fundementality also applies to the definition of “Bachelor”. Even if in a world where the only major difference between bachelors and married men is that bachelors are available for marriage (no difference in partying/pads..etc.), that single characteristic, “available for marriage”, is dependent/linked back to the essential characteristic of been “unmarried”.
Since it’s so obvious and simple the application of RoF in the case of “bachelor” when compared to the example of using RoF to identify the essential characteristic of human being in that lexicon excerpt, I guess I missed it. But I can see now how the same principle applies.