Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts. So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner in which they're integrated into a single concept.
Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly how all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how all the systems supporting anything work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason.
Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)
I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY autonomous.
That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about.
You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation.
Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims.
That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the matter.
Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals. Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing.
No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said.
To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's sloppy thinking.
There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe it.
Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is.
And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came after her so sorely miss.
I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous' is like saying the president is not ONLY elected, he is also unelected. Men are rational beings, ie. they possess the ability to reason (regardless of whether they use it properly or at all), saying men are rational but also not rational is like saying 'this car is a diesel but it is also not a diesel.' If you think irrationality has benefits for survival you need to actually state your case, give examples.
I don't think you understand very well what Rand is arguing, either - the reason I responded initially was because you said 'rationality is good' was an unsupported claim by Rand, as if she used it as an axiom but she doesn't. I'm not making any effort to 'exclude' examples that you give - you just don't seem to fully grasp that which you're criticizing, so it's no surprise that you give inappropriate examples.
And of course something cannot be rational outside of its context - in man's case the context is the environment (and his own thoughts/memories), hence 'consciousness.' Consciousness implies something to be conscious of.
Look, you can try to deny statements like 'doves can fly' (all doves? baby doves? retarded doves? doves with broken wings? doves in cages? war doves?) all you want. You seem determined to deny the basic tenets of human existence - we just think we're individuals, but we're not; we just think we perceive reality, but we don't; we just think words denote reality, but they can't; etc etc. You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.
If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest.
Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical arguments. You are just making claims.
With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread.
But let's look at something she did claim.
"Existence exist"
The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity.
You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.
But that is philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to let you go by in your daily life.
That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no intellectual progress.
You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You want certainty were none exist.
And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology, Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand.
Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind.
That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic approach.
Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent rational thinking it is not.
With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread.
In this case it is you that needs to properly read my reply. That's the second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism here] bit).
I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without really explaining what you mean.
Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or 'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word 'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject.
By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in reading more about these low-level details of Oism.
Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't.
Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and objectivism.
I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it.
First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible.
Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience it.
I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence.
Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason.
So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able to reason.
That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be.
Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is that there aren't any certain premises.
Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is. That is the whole point of philosophy.
I too use philosophy to 'push my understanding of the world around me' but for what possible reason should I want to do this except to better inform the decisions I make in my life?
All of Objectivism can be extrapolated from 'Existence exists.' That statement implies that 'something' exists (hence law of identity, A is A) and that you are conscious of it (hence consciousness). That gives us the three axiomatic concepts on which Objectivism rests - everyone directly perceives them - and they cannot be denied because any argument against them would inevitably involve/imply existence/identity/consciousness resulting in self-contradiction. In a similar way, the validity of the senses is not up for debate because any attempt to negate this validity would at some point rely upon it. So you need to accept the three irreducible primaries (existence/identity/consciousness) and the validity of the senses - and happily basically everyone does accept those things, and lives accordingly, and would only so much as attempt to deny them during rare philosophical debates.
When I said rational beings are defined by their ability to reason, I did not mean such beings are automatically acting rationally. Its a different sense of the word, like a fast car vs a car that is actually going fast. Just a misunderstanding.
Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly how all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how all the systems supporting anything work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason.
Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)