Your thoughts on my definition of "life"?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I watched a movie in class a few days ago where one of the main characters had a love to live life. (the movie was Tuesday’s with Murray–or something along those lines, in case your wondering)

After some thought, I asked myself, “what do I mean when I say that someone “love’s to live life?”” So, in an attempt to define the concept “life” I substituted the word “life” with a phrase. I thought to myself, “When I say that I love life, I mean that I love to discover, experiment, express my values, share my feelings, contemplate, and introspect.”

After I wrote this down on a piece of paper, I circled the phrase, “to discover, experiment, express my values, share my feelings, contemplate, and introspect.” Then I told myself that this is what I meant by the phrase “loves to live life.” Now, with that in mind, could I come up with a rational definition of the concept “life.”

Here’s what I came up with: “Life is the profoundly experiental relationship b/t man and his existence with reality.” (According to an Objectivist lecture I listened to, if I remember correctly, “philosophy” is the study of man and his relationship to reality, rather than the actual experience of his relationship to reality) So to insert it onto my other statement of “the main character loved to live life,” would be, “the main character loved the profoundly experiental relationship b/t himself and his existence with reality.”

Regardless of the exactitude of my definition of life, would the conceptual common denominator (if it exists in my definition) of my definition be “the relationship b/t man and his existence with reality?” And would this also be considered my differentia? And if so, is there a difference b/t the CCD and the differentia?

From IOE, pg 41: “Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents.”

In the case of my definition of life, what would be the genus? Where does my concept of life connect with a wider group of existents?–And if it does, what are the existents? Could the “wider group of existents” be considered the components of reality itself?

I would ask you if you think my definition of life is accurate, but if the above statements are answered, it will suffice.

With all this in mind, I’ve been going around lately to see if i can define random objects that I find in my apartment; and I must admit, it is rather tough. What are some practical ways one goes about defining? If you’ve tried defining concepts, what are some ways that worked for you?

Nick.

2

I’m by no means an expert on Objectivist epistemology, but I’ll give it a go B)

The genus is the class of existents you are distinguishing your concept from, in that they all possess common characteristics that you will then refine to distinguish ‘life’.

You definition of life (which, actually, I do like, at least in a human sense) is: “Life is the profoundly experiental relationship b/t man and his existence with reality.”

You’ve got your genus and differentia explicitly written. You can determine the genus by extracting all of the information that serves to qualify or restrict the definition, then look for what’s left. The genus of your definition of life would be ‘relationship;’ life, by your definition, is a type of relationship.

Genus:

Relationship.

The CCD(s) is the characteric(s) that all members of the genus possess, and that you are using to distinguish your type of relationship. Concepts of relationships are composed of two things: The nature of the relationship, and the entities it applies to. Your definition differentiates ‘life’ on the basis of both, and so both would be your Conceptual Common Denominators.

CCDs:

  1. The nature of the relationship.

  2. The entities it applies to.

Your differentia are the specific range or qualities of the CCDs that distinguish your type of relationship from all types of relationships.

Differentia:

  1. The nature of the relationship: “profoundly experiential”

  2. The entites it applies to: “man and existence”

Thus, life is a type of relationship (genus) that is both profoundly experiential and applied to man and existence (differentia).

3

The genus in your definition would be “profoundly experiental relationship.” I don’t know whether “experiental” is mistyped “experimental” or “experiential,” but I assume “experiential” (or does experiental mean something else?). Having established this assumption, I must ask you first what does it mean for something to be “profoundly experiential?” How does adjective “profoundly” differentiate the phrase “profoundly experiential” from simply “experiential?”

The differentia of your definition is “between man and his existence with reality.” I don’t know what the phrase “existence with reality” means, but if it is supposed to be “existence in reality” then “in reality” is redundant. Existence presupposes reality, therefore it is sufficient to say “between man and his existence.”

Also, you are clearly not defining “life” but “man’s life.”

“Man’s life is the experiential relationship between himself and his existence.”

The above definition is incorrect. It is not true that all man does in his life is gather experience. What about his biological necessities, the products of his mind, etc.?

Moreover, the genus you specify here is out of place. You are differentiating “man’s life” from “life,” which is why genus should be “life.” Therefore, “Man’s life is a life that differentiates from all other life in certain ways.” How does man’s life differentiate from the life say of a dog; or a monkey?

To make a definition, always answer the following questions:

  1. What am I defining?

The answer could be “this” (pointing at a table), or something else.

This will be the defining object.

  1. What am I differentiating it from?

Answering this will give you the genus.

  1. How is it different from other similar objects?

In the case of a specific table, you must know how it is different from other tables. What is the most important thing that makes it different? You must, in fact, know what the purpose of this definition is; you can make a thousand definitions and forget them in an hour because they are pointless.

Answering this, and this is the hardest part, will give you the differentia.

When you answer the above questions, it’s all downhill. Just put everything together and you’re done.

4

The genus in your definition would be “profoundly experiental relationship.”

Why? Isn’t this a further refinement of the broader genus, ‘relationship’? Though “profoundly experiential” appears as an adjective in front of relationship, does that alone afford it the status of genus as opposed to differentia? If not, I don’t see how the difference between ‘profoundly experiential’ and ‘between a man and existence’ has any cognitive difference; both are further qualifications to the type of relationship.

5

Why? Isn’t this a further refinement of the broader genus, ‘relationship’? Though “profoundly experiential” appears as an adjective in front of relationship, does that alone afford it the status of genus as opposed to differentia? If not, I don’t see how the difference between ‘profoundly experiential’ and ‘between a man and existence’ has any cognitive difference; both are further qualifications to the type of relationship.

I was answering his questions in this part of the post. Looking at the structure of his definition, that IS his genus (I’m leaving aside whether he is right or wrong here).

Anyway, it seems to me that you haven’t read my post entirely, so I’m just going to ask you to read it before making further comments.

6

I was answering his questions in this part of the post. Looking at the structure of his definition, that IS his genus (I’m leaving aside whether he is right or wrong here).

I realise that. I was asking a question relating to the structure of his definition. When analysing a definition, is it always the case that adjectives placed in front of the genus are included in that genus? You seemed to look at that definition and choose ‘profoundly experiential relationship’ as the genus. I looked at that definition and chose ‘relationship’ as the genus, identifying ‘profoundly experiential’ as differentia.

Following the steps you outlined:

  1. What am I defining? (Life)

  2. What am I differentiating it from? (Relationships)

  3. How is it different from other similar objects? (Profoundly Experiential, Man & Existence)

Anyway, it seems to me that you haven’t read my post entirely, so I’m just going to ask you to read it before making further comments.

Woops, you caught me! To think I could have pulled one over on you… :slight_smile:

7

How about something like: life is a biological entity with the purpose of self-sustainment and/or reproduction?

8

How about something like: life is a biological entity with the purpose of self-sustainment and/or reproduction?

I wouldnt use the word ‘purpose’ here, it is misleading at best. I dont think that spiders have any more purpose when they are making a web than rocks do when they are falling to the ground. ‘Purpose’, as generally used, implies some kind of conscious goalsetting which makes it a uniquely human term.

The definition is also circular in a way - the word biological means (dictionary.com)“of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms”, so it is defined in terms of ‘life’.

9

I thought Ayn Rand defined “life” as self-generated, self-sustaining action.

10

I thought Ayn Rand defined “life” as self-generated, self-sustaining action.

That’s what I was trying to paraphrase. At first I was about to try and defend the biological part though, but then I realized the definition as you wrote can also cover the “life” of a star so I won’t touch it.

11

If ‘self-generated, self-sustaining action’ is a sufficient definition of life, are stars alive?

12

If ‘self-generated, self-sustaining action’ is a sufficient definition of life, are stars alive?

No, because a definition, while explicitly naming the ESSENTIAL characteristics, still subsumes all the OTHER characteristics. A concept does not refer to the definition, but the referents that are subsumed under it, namely, things that are alive.

Man is the “rational animal” but that does not mean that man=“rational” + “animal”.

13

No, because a definition, while explicitly naming the ESSENTIAL characteristics, still subsumes all the OTHER characteristics.  A concept does not refer to the definition, but the referents that are subsumed under it, namely, things that are alive.

Man is the “rational animal” but that does not mean that man=“rational” + “animal”.

But the essential characteristics of a concept must serve to distinguish the concept from all other concepts in the context of our knowledge, correct? If life is defined as ‘self-generated, self-sustaining action,’ and stars effect self-generated, self-sustaining action but do not live, then that definition is not accurately distinguishing the “self-generated, self-sustaining action” that is ‘life’ from the “self-generated, self-sustaining action” that is not ‘life’ (ie. it’s a bad definition, since it doesn’t give us the information we need to know that stars are not alive).

To compare with the definition of man, “rational animal” serves as an accurate definition only because we are aware of no rational animals that are not man; that definition accurately distinguishes men from all other concepts. If we were to discover one (say, intelligent alien life), then our definition of man would have to change to accurately reflect the integration of this new knowledge; the definition of “rational animal” would no longer be valid.

For the same reasons, “self-generated, self-sustaining action” is not a valid definition of life if it does not accurately distinguish itself from the action of stars (or engines, or reactors, or fire, or even explosions for that matter).

14

Stars do fit the definitions Jennifer gave and they are “alive” in a sense, i.e. in exacty the sense that fits the definition. I was defending that originally. And now that I think of it you do have to add biological into the definition somewhere to differentiate the way we and other biological creatures are alive compared with the “life” of a star.

15

So, life is self-generated,self-sustaining action. But biological-life is highly chemically ordered/organized self-generated, self-sustaining action?

16

No, because a definition, while explicitly naming the ESSENTIAL characteristics, still subsumes all the OTHER characteristics.  A concept does not refer to the definition, but the referents that are subsumed under it, namely, things that are alive.

Man is the “rational animal” but that does not mean that man=“rational” + “animal”.

I’m confused. What criteria do we have for saying a particular entity is subsumed under a concept, other than the definition of the concept? If the definition doesnt tell us how to use the word, then what does? If someone asks us what a particular word means, then we must tell him something which explains what it means and what role it plays in our language. If the definition we give him is not sufficient to let him understand the word, then what good is it?

(This is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for a while actually, I was going to start a thread about it).

Rational One

Stars do fit the definitions Jennifer gave and they are “alive” in a sense, i.e. in exacty the sense that fits the definition. I was defending that originally. And now that I think of it you do have to add biological into the definition somewhere to differentiate the way we and other biological creatures are alive compared with the “life” of a star

ALL living things are biological - that is what the word ‘biological’ means.

17

ALL living things are biological - that is what the word ‘biological’ means.

So are you guys saying one can’t say: The _life_time of the Sun is approximately ten billion years, or During the Suns life it will consume all of its store of hydrogen? I see nothing wrong with either of these sentences, and the usage of the word “life” fits Ayn Rand’s definition. So we need the definition of the type of life that contains entities like us to be slightly different somehow. The definition I gave above was just my first attempt at it, obviously, I’m not claiming it’s definitive. But this seems like a pretty important issue that we can’t seem to define the type of life that we are.

18

So are you guys saying one can’t say: The _life_time of the Sun is approximately ten billion years, or During the Suns life it will consume all of its store of hydrogen? I see nothing wrong with either of these sentences, and the usage of the word “life” fits Ayn Rand’s definition. So we need the definition of the type of life that contains entities like us to be slightly different somehow. The definition I gave above was just my first attempt at it, obviously, I’m not claiming it’s definitive. But this seems like a pretty important issue that we can’t seem to define the type of life that we are.

The word ‘life’ means slightly different things in different contexts - I dont think you need a definition which covers every single usage of the word, nor do I think this is even possible. Someone who talks about the sun’s life is obviously using the word in a different way than someone who talks about the life of his cat - the context is entirely different. We all have a pretty good idea what it means for something to be a living thing, so we can define the word ‘life’ as it is used in the normal cases as something like “self generating action” (or whatever), and then treat instances such as “the sun’s life” as a being metaphors - noone really believes that the sun is alive when they use this phrase.

If you want a single definition which covers ALL usages, as varied as “the half life of an atom”, “the lifetime of the sun”, “I had an enjoyable life” and “life began 10000 years ago”, I think you’re going to spend quite some time looking for something that doesnt exist. Focusing on the primary cases seems quite sufficient.

19

The word ‘life’ means slightly different things in different contexts - I dont think you need a definition which covers every single usage of the word, nor do I think this is even possible. Someone who talks about the sun’s life is obviously using the word in a different way than someone who talks about the life of his cat - the context is entirely different. We all have a pretty good idea what it means for something to be a living thing, so we can define the word ‘life’ as it is used in the normal cases as something like “self generating action” (or whatever), and then treat instances such as “the sun’s life” as a being metaphors - noone really believes that the sun is alive when they use this phrase.

If you want one definition which covers ALL usages, as varied as “the half life of an atom”, “the lifetime of the sun”, “I had an enjoyable life” and “life began 10000 years ago”, I think you’re going to spend quite some time looking for something that doesnt exist.

Neither do I, but the point is the Sun posseses “life” in the sense of the definition given. This can’t be denied. It just doesn’t possess “life” in the biological sense that we personally have. We need a more specific definition.

20

Neither do I, but the point is the Sun posseses “life” in the sense of the definition given. This can’t be denied. It just doesn’t possess “life” in the biological sense that we personally have. We need a more specific definition.

Ok. Then I think the question to ask is what entities you want the concept life to subsume. Are amoebas and viruses going to class as life? In that case, I dont think you can include much above simple replication. But then there are computer programs and the like that can also replicate themselves, and many object to calling them ‘alive’. I’m personally not sure how one could draw a clear boundary around the concept which includes all that biologists call life, but also excludes robots and the like. Personally I would use a definition which includes the possiblity of death (this in my opinion is THE key aspect of life) and the ability to perform actions that could reasonably be interpreted as goal directed. I would be prepared to let significantly advanced computer programs be classed as alive. Many will find this abhorant, but I dont think they will be able to produce a better definition that includes all the thigns they want it to, and nothing else. When people say that computer programs cant be alive, they generally mean that computer programs are nothing like cats, dogs or humans. This is absolutely correct. But a robot seems more ‘alive’ to me than the flu virus or an amoeba.