I honestly got reminded of the quote from Futurama.
And I honestly don't take Ayn Rand as a definitive resource on much beyond her own ego. She claimed that her philosophy was unique, other than a sole debt to Aristotle. Aristotle of all people. The guy who can't even count the legs of a fly and who thinks that menstruating women cloud mirrors if they look in them. So sorry if I stoop to ridicule if you worship her turgid prose, but really.
[edit] Also - as to her definition of table that you gave, well it could just as easily be describing a shelf. And the idea of the definition of table being some absolute thing based on shape is preposterous. I do wish these philosophers would have a chat with some designers before waffling on about platonic forms of household objects. A table is defined by usage, expectation and personal perception. In weightless environments, the concept of table could easily be a clear, easily accessible floating box kept in the middle of a spacecraft's living space, for instance.
You can't judge Ayn Rand (well, anyone--and that's my real point) by a mistaken attack on someone else (Aristotle). That's worse than judging her by a cartoon. Again, it's not an honest approach.
So sorry if I stoop to ridicule if you worship her turgid prose, but really
In case you actually think I approach ideas in a dishonest, religious way (hence, "worship")--I don't. This is just a stupid comment.
And the idea of the definition of table being some absolute thing based on shape is preposterous
This is a misunderstanding of the idea being presented. But anyway, you couldn't get a complete understanding without reading the original source (it's from a book), so speculating on it here is probably pointless.
I can judge Ayn Rand's philosophy partly on that of Aristotle given that she claimed to be a philosopher who owed nothing to anyone else in her philosophy other than Aristotle. Which I personally think is a completely ludicrous and frankly egotistical thing for anyone to try and claim.
So how am I being dishonest?
Also, how have I misunderstood the idea being presented here;
"For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture."
Now admittedly, the book may expound upon this and create a completely different interpretation based on the overall context, but given that you presented me with this excerpt and claimed it as a reasonable argument, you will forgive me for dealing with only the words that were in front of me at the time.
but given that you presented me with this excerpt and claimed it as a reasonable argument
I didn't claim it as a reasonable argument. I don't think it's very useful out of context. Just wanted to illustrate genus and differentia.
So how am I being dishonest?
You're being dishonest because you're just indulging your emotional whims by "judging" things on completely irrational criteria, instead of actually examining the ideas.
Is funny, I'd say you were being irrational due to an emotional attachment to Ayn Rands work.
That was my judgement when you used her lexicon as the ultimate arbiter of the definition of 'definition' and then just told people to read it when challenged on this position.
And I honestly don't take Ayn Rand as a definitive resource on much beyond her own ego. She claimed that her philosophy was unique, other than a sole debt to Aristotle. Aristotle of all people. The guy who can't even count the legs of a fly and who thinks that menstruating women cloud mirrors if they look in them. So sorry if I stoop to ridicule if you worship her turgid prose, but really.
[edit] Also - as to her definition of table that you gave, well it could just as easily be describing a shelf. And the idea of the definition of table being some absolute thing based on shape is preposterous. I do wish these philosophers would have a chat with some designers before waffling on about platonic forms of household objects. A table is defined by usage, expectation and personal perception. In weightless environments, the concept of table could easily be a clear, easily accessible floating box kept in the middle of a spacecraft's living space, for instance.