Concept formation - Revision history

Dream weaver at 22:55, 24 August 2011

2011-08-24T22:55:46Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:55, 24 August 2011
Line 1:	Line 1:
		The first step in [[concept]] formation, called ''[[differentiation]]'', is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''[[unit]]s'' of the same class. While many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

		The second step of concept formation, ''[[integration]]'', is based on a process Ayn Rand called ''[[measurement omission]]''. In this step, we combine or integrate the units into a new, single mental unit by omitting the quantitative differences between the two units. We retain the characteristics of the units, but we omit the particular measurements-on the principle that these measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. For example, when forming the concept ''table'' we retain the distinguishing characteristics-a flat, level surface and supports-but omit the particular measurements of those features.

		Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''

		== Errors of concept formation ==

		Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

		Apparent concepts that are not formed in accordance with these rules or principles are considered "anti-concepts" and are said to represent failures of integration. A major concern of the Objectivist epistemology is the identification and avoidance of such "anti-concepts", which are regarded as mental monstrosities that do not succeed in referring to any external reality whatsoever. Objectivism also opposes what it calls "floating abstractions", or concepts formed without proper connection to their concrete foundations. In all cases, the application of "Rand's Razor" is warranted; this razor states that all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries.

		It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

		Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

		While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

		{{E_Nav}}

		[[Category:Epistemology]]

Dream weaver: Blanked the page

2011-08-24T22:44:55Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 24 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The first step in [[concept]] formation, called ''[[differentiation]]'', is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

	[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

	The second step of concept formation, ''integration,'' is based on a process Ayn Rand called ''measurement omission.'' In this step, we combine or integrate the units into a new, single mental unit by omitting the quantitative differences between the two units. We retain the characteristics of the units, but we omit the particular measurements-on the principle that these measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. For example, when forming the concept ''table'' we retain the distinguishing characteristics-a flat, level surface and supports-but omit the particular measurements of those features.

	Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''

	~~== Errors of concept formation ==~~

	Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

	Apparent concepts that are not formed in accordance with these rules or principles are considered "anti-concepts" and are said to represent failures of integration. A major concern of the Objectivist epistemology is the identification and avoidance of such "anti-concepts", which are regarded as mental monstrosities that do not succeed in referring to any external reality whatsoever. Objectivism also opposes what it calls "floating abstractions", or concepts formed without proper connection to their concrete foundations. In all cases, the application of "Rand's Razor" is warranted; this razor states that all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries.

	It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

	Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

	While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

	~~{{E_Nav}}~~

	~~[[Category:Epistemology]]~~

Dream weaver at 22:27, 24 August 2011

2011-08-24T22:27:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 24 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The first step in [[concept]] formation, called [[''~~differentiation~~,~~'']]~~ is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.		The first step in [[concept]] formation, called ''[[differentiation]]'', is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

	[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

Dream weaver at 22:27, 24 August 2011

2011-08-24T22:27:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 24 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The first step in [[concept]] formation, called ''differentiation,'' is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.		The first step in [[concept]] formation, called [[''differentiation,'']] is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

	[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

Dream weaver at 10:24, 23 August 2011

2011-08-23T10:24:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 23 August 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

	The second step of concept formation, ''integration,'' is based on a process Ayn Rand called ''measurement omission.'' In this step, we combine or integrate the units into a new, single mental unit by ~~[[eliding]]~~ the quantitative differences between the two units. We retain the characteristics of the units, but we ~~elide~~ the particular measurements-on the principle that these measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. For example, when forming the concept ''table'' we retain the distinguishing characteristics-a flat, level surface and supports-but omit the particular measurements of those features.		The second step of concept formation, ''integration,'' is based on a process Ayn Rand called ''measurement omission.'' In this step, we combine or integrate the units into a new, single mental unit by omitting the quantitative differences between the two units. We retain the characteristics of the units, but we omit the particular measurements-on the principle that these measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. For example, when forming the concept ''table'' we retain the distinguishing characteristics-a flat, level surface and supports-but omit the particular measurements of those features.

	Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''		Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''

Dream weaver at 10:22, 23 August 2011

2011-08-23T10:22:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 23 August 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''		Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''


	~~== Errors of concept formation ==~~
	Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

	Apparent concepts that are not formed in accordance with these rules or principles are considered "anti-concepts" and are said to represent failures of integration. A major concern of the Objectivist epistemology is the identification and avoidance of such "anti-concepts", which are regarded as mental monstrosities that do not succeed in referring to any external reality whatsoever. Objectivism also opposes what it calls "floating abstractions", or concepts formed without proper connection to their concrete foundations. In all cases, the application of "Rand's Razor" is warranted; this razor states that all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries.

	It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

	Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

	While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

	== Errors of concept formation ==		== Errors of concept formation ==

Sir Andrew at 05:51, 27 August 2010

2010-08-27T05:51:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 27 August 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.		While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

			{{E_Nav}}

	[[Category:Epistemology]]		[[Category:Epistemology]]

GreedyCapitalist at 00:54, 9 September 2009

2009-09-09T00:54:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 9 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The first step in [[concept ~~formation~~]], called ''differentiation,'' is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.		The first step in [[concept]] formation, called ''differentiation,'' is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

	[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

GreedyCapitalist at 00:54, 9 September 2009

2009-09-09T00:54:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 9 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A [[concept]] is ~~just such a classification: a mental "integration" of at least~~ two ~~existents that share a common attribute~~ or ~~set of attributes (perhaps in different measures or degrees)~~, ~~each of which is for this purpose regarded~~ as ~~a unit~~ of the concept. ~~Once a concept~~ is ~~formed~~, it is ~~given~~ a ~~specific definition~~ and ~~assigned~~ a ~~word; thereafter~~, ~~it can be treated almost~~ as ~~a perceptual object~~, ~~containing (or otherwise linking to)~~ a ~~wealth~~ of ~~implicit knowledge that need not be held explicitly in consciousness~~.		The first step in [[concept formation]], called ''differentiation,'' is to isolate two or more things as belonging together, as ''units'' of the same class. Where many theories of concept formation hold that such isolation begins by noticing degrees of similarity, [[Objectivist philosophy\|Objectivism]] holds that it starts by noticing degrees of differences. At the perceptual level, everything is different; however, somethings are more different from others. The difference between two tables, for instance, is less than the difference between a table and a chair. Because two tables are less different from one another when contrasted against a third object, we group them together as ''units,'' as members of a group of similar objects.

	~~These concepts are formed by means of "~~[[~~measurement omission~~]]~~". Concepts are formed by isolating specific attributes of~~ two or more ~~similar concretes~~(~~such as tables, to use Rand'~~s ~~example~~), ~~and omitting the particular measurements involved~~. ~~The concept~~ of table, ~~therefore,~~ is ~~formed by isolating the attributes(Rand~~'~~s "Conceptual Common Denominators") that constitute "~~table~~-ness"----ie~~, ~~support(s)~~ and ~~a flat surface upon which items may be placed----and omitting~~ the ~~specific measurements involved; height~~, ~~weight~~, ~~color~~, ~~number of supports~~, ~~diameter of surface, etc~~. ~~Once a concept is formed~~, it is ~~defined by identifying its "essential" characteristic(s);~~ that is, the ~~characteristic or characteristics on which, within the context in which the concept is being formed~~, the ~~most~~ other ~~characteristics depend~~.		[[Ayn Rand]] defines similarity as: ''the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.'' Similarity is a matter of [[measurement]]. Going back to the table versus chair example, the difference between tables is a [[quantitative]] one-we can easily ''stretch'' one table into another, so we call them similar. The difference between tables and chairs, on the other hand, is [[qualitative]], so we distinguish between these as belonging to another group. Of course, at a broader level, even the difference between tables and chairs is quantitative-with enough stretching and pulling one could turn a chair into a table as well. However, the point is that the table-to-table stretching is much less than the table-to-chair stretching, so we consider one quantitative and the other qualitative.

	The ~~reference to "context" here~~ is ~~crucial~~. ~~Since every concept is formed in~~ a ~~specific context~~, ~~every definition is therefore contextual~~. ~~If concepts are properly formed~~, ~~then even though additional knowledge~~ may ~~require changes to one~~'~~s definitions, one~~'~~s later definitions will not contradict one~~'~~s earlier ones~~.		The second step of concept formation, ''integration,'' is based on a process Ayn Rand called ''measurement omission.'' In this step, we combine or integrate the units into a new, single mental unit by [[eliding]] the quantitative differences between the two units. We retain the characteristics of the units, but we elide the particular measurements-on the principle that these measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. For example, when forming the concept ''table'' we retain the distinguishing characteristics-a flat, level surface and supports-but omit the particular measurements of those features.

	~~What is the role of reason in~~ this process~~? Reason consists in forming~~ concepts ~~through~~ the ~~use of logic~~, ~~what Objectivism defines as "the art of noncontradictory identification"~~.		Based on this two step process, Ayn Rand defined concepts as: ''a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.''

	Objectivism denies that the proposition is the fundamental unit of knowledge, arguing instead that concepts themselves constitute the building blocks of knowledge. So, in their way, do percepts, which consist of the knowledge that something exists. Concepts, however, consist of knowledge of what exists.

	== Errors of concept formation ==		== Errors of concept formation ==

GreedyCapitalist at 07:06, 10 June 2006

2006-06-10T07:06:53Z

New page

A [[concept]] is just such a classification: a mental "integration" of at least two existents that share a common attribute or set of attributes (perhaps in different measures or degrees), each of which is for this purpose regarded as a unit of the concept. Once a concept is formed, it is given a specific definition and assigned a word; thereafter, it can be treated almost as a perceptual object, containing (or otherwise linking to) a wealth of implicit knowledge that need not be held explicitly in consciousness.

These concepts are formed by means of "[[measurement omission]]". Concepts are formed by isolating specific attributes of two or more similar concretes(such as tables, to use Rand's example), and omitting the particular measurements involved. The concept of table, therefore, is formed by isolating the attributes(Rand's "Conceptual Common Denominators") that constitute "table-ness"----ie, support(s) and a flat surface upon which items may be placed----and omitting the specific measurements involved; height, weight, color, number of supports, diameter of surface, etc. Once a concept is formed, it is defined by identifying its "essential" characteristic(s); that is, the characteristic or characteristics on which, within the context in which the concept is being formed, the most other characteristics depend.

The reference to "context" here is crucial. Since every concept is formed in a specific context, every definition is therefore contextual. If concepts are properly formed, then even though additional knowledge may require changes to one's definitions, one's later definitions will not contradict one's earlier ones.

What is the role of reason in this process? Reason consists in forming concepts through the use of logic, what Objectivism defines as "the art of noncontradictory identification".

Objectivism denies that the proposition is the fundamental unit of knowledge, arguing instead that concepts themselves constitute the building blocks of knowledge. So, in their way, do percepts, which consist of the knowledge that something exists. Concepts, however, consist of knowledge of what exists.

== Errors of concept formation ==
Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

Apparent concepts that are not formed in accordance with these rules or principles are considered "anti-concepts" and are said to represent failures of integration. A major concern of the Objectivist epistemology is the identification and avoidance of such "anti-concepts", which are regarded as mental monstrosities that do not succeed in referring to any external reality whatsoever. Objectivism also opposes what it calls "floating abstractions", or concepts formed without proper connection to their concrete foundations. In all cases, the application of "Rand's Razor" is warranted; this razor states that all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries.

It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

== Errors of concept formation ==

Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

Apparent concepts that are not formed in accordance with these rules or principles are considered "anti-concepts" and are said to represent failures of integration. A major concern of the Objectivist epistemology is the identification and avoidance of such "anti-concepts", which are regarded as mental monstrosities that do not succeed in referring to any external reality whatsoever. Objectivism also opposes what it calls "floating abstractions", or concepts formed without proper connection to their concrete foundations. In all cases, the application of "Rand's Razor" is warranted; this razor states that all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries.

It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

While many fallacies are mere errors worthy of no ethical attention, any deliberate commission of a rational error, or the deliberate refusal to abide by reason, is called "evasion" — evasion, that is, of reason. Evasion is considered grossly immoral by Objectivism, as it is a deliberate abdication of the capacities of the human person and a volitional desire to live at a subhuman level.

[[Category:Epistemology]]