Here is what I read,
“A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition”
Ok what does this mean?
What are units?
What is a process of abstraction?
What does it look like when it is united by a defintion?
What does she mean by definition?
Thanks!
“A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition”
Ok what does this mean?
Imagine telling a young child, “Spot is a dog”. Then another day, while walking in the park, you point and say: “Look at that huge dog”. Perhaps you show him a neighbors’s dog, … and so on. Each of those dogs is a “unit”. The child looks at those and recognizes some similarity. He can’t even begin to say what’s similar; yet, he recognizes them.
One dog was brown, another was black and the third a Dalmation, yet he can identify them as dogs. Then, walking in the park some other day, he might point to a white dog and say: “look at that dog”. Consider that he might well be able to do this even if this is the first time he has seen a white dog. Obviously, in his mind he has abstracted out certain isolated highlights about what makes up a dog. The concept “dog” thus acts as an integration of the various dogs, including the ones he has not yet seen.
Where did you read this? Because as you might be aware she explains this in detail quite clearly in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If this has so far been unable to help you it might be difficult for anyone else to, she eventually makes this stuff about as clear as I could imagine it being made.
I would also suggest what I usually suggest for this sort of question, browsing through the following Ayn Rand general reference website to see if it helps: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/
But I will try to see if I can provide a little bit of short clarification now as well, though I do not have the chance right now to go into very much. But its a start.
A definition is in Ayn Rands words:
“… a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.”
This simply means that a definition is a statement that specifies the essential characeristics of the units that the definition is intended to subsume, and importantly, it specifies that which differentiates those units from other units.
“The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.” - Ayn Rand.
I hope that is of some help. Hopefully myself or someone else here will be willing to help you further at some other stage.
What are units?
“A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members” (ITOE p. 6).
Thanks that was helpful.
In regards to units Ayn Rand says,
“The ability to regards entities as units is man’s distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology p. 6)
I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn’t that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?
Thanks that was helpful.
In regards to units Ayn Rand says,
“The ability to regards entities as units is man’s distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology p. 6)
I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn’t that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?
You recognize that shoe and water are not part of the same conceptual set right?
If not we’ve got a bigger problem 
Anywho…
A Dog will know what a tree is, but it will not know what a forest is, or that there are Birch, Oak, Maples, Conifers and Deciduous trees.
Thanks that was helpful.
In regards to units Ayn Rand says,
“The ability to regards entities as units is man’s distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology p. 6)
I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn’t that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?
No, its an instance of regarding the entity, a shoe, separately from the entity, water. A unit is an instance of a concept, so the idea of a unit has no meaning to a mentality that cannot conceptualize. It is also very important that concepts serve the purpose of unit reduction, so fixing a concept in memory with a word is indispensable to the process. Dogs do not think in words.
Why don’t you try reading the whole book before asking questions? Read it several times, like I had to do.
I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn’t that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?
The discussion of the “Crow Epistemology” should clear this up for you. It is covered in both ITOE and OPAR.
Why don’t you try reading the whole book before asking questions? Read it several times , like I had to do.
This is great advice for any self-teaching process. I’m in the middle of my third reading of OPAR, and I’ve read ITOE, VoS, and FH twice (everything else by Rand, Peikoff, and Tara Smith once).
In any other academic pursuit, you would accompany reading with problem sets or essays - in the absence of such externally provided reinforcement, repetition is one way to better digest and integrate the material.
At a *minimum*, at least finish reading the sections you’re in before asking questions. For example, right now you’re asking questions of epistemology. You don’t need to get to morality to ask questions about epistemology, but you should at least finish the material on epistemology once.
In any other academic pursuit, you would accompany reading with problem sets or essays - in the absence of such externally provided reinforcement, repetition is one way to better digest and integrate the material.
Discussing on the forum helps, too, but it works best if you present “here’s what she said, here’s what I THINK this means, am I right?” instead of just asking people to explain. This forces you to organize your thinking and try to present it in some understandable way, it also helps other readers find where you’re specifically having problems understanding.
I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn’t that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?
As the name says, a “unit” implies a unity. Being able to distinguish two things does not mean that the dog therefore has an A concept and a B concept. You need proof of mental unification of two A’s.
Also, you can’t automatically equate behavior with human-like cognition. Dogs will eat anything, and they do so without any “regarding”.
Hah, yes, I’ve seen dogs eat “anything”. After all, why not eat it and risk that it might actually be food when you can always barf it back up later if it turns out it isn’t.