Word as capstone of concept

One of the more difficult conclusions of Ayn Rand's to buy is that a word must be created to finish the process of concept formation. (It's been a while since I've read ITOE, so if this isn't quite accurate let me know).

It seems she isn't the only person to have thought so. I've been told Kenan Malik, writer of Man, Beast, and Zombie: what science can and cannot tell us about human nature, comes to the same conclusion while pondering whether animals are rational.

I think Rand is right that a concept acts as a sort of filing system for a vast amount of data increasing cognitive efficiency, and that a word acts as a perceptual concrete for that concept, perhaps solidifying the memory of the concept. I agree also, that language would be a natural thing to look for in finding out if a certain creature was rational. Language is proof of rationality, but does the smallest degree of reason need language? (I speak in degrees referring to the measurement omission thesis)

The conclusion is difficult to believe for introspective reasons. Before I start a sentence on a subject I feel competent of, the ideas (or concepts) are in mind - in full form. Yet words are far more slippery. I might forget a word and stop to dig into memory for that perceptual concrete.

The opposite process, seeing a word and trying to remember what it means, happens only when the subject I'm thinking about is unfamiliar. In other words, when the concepts aren't solidly known.

In the process of thinking the order seems to be concept --> word, rather than word --> concept.

Perhaps Rand was talking about learning concepts as opposed to using them. I'm trying to think of a good way to prove or falsify this.

If anyone is up on neuroscience, perhaps they know of studies that have timed which area of the brain fires first, the language, or the conceptual (if there are such conveniently distinct areas).

Post 1

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 9:42pm

Doug,

I don't think Rand's view is that concepts cannot exist -- cannot be formed -- without words. Her view is that words transform concepts into mental entities. A concept is a mental integration of two or more units with the same distinguishing characteristics. A word enables that integration to be held as a single mental entity, to be retained in one's mind for ready access. So the concept -- the mental integration -- is formed first, then attached to a word -- to a visual-auditory symbol. Clearly, the concept must exist before it can be symbolized.

As an example, Rand describes how a child forms the concept length by observing a match, a pencil and a stick and abstracting that particular property, which they all share. She says that if the process were identified in words, it would consist of the following: "Length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as 'length' that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity."

She then says, "The child does not think in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words), but that is the nature of the process which his mind performs wordlessly. And that is the principle that his mind follows, when, having grasped the concept "length" by observing the three objects, he uses it to identify the attribute of length in a piece of string, a ribbon, a belt, a corridor or a street." (ITOE, p. 11)

- Bill

Post 2

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:28am

Mr. Doug Fischer wrote:

One of the more difficult conclusions of Ayn Rand's to buy is that a word must be created to finish the process of concept formation. (It's been a while since I've read ITOE, so if this isn't quite accurate let me know).

I guess you are referring to the first sentence of the following.

The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word. The first concepts a child forms are concepts of perceptual entities; the first words he learns are words designating them (ITOE2, 19).

This is pretty vague in my opinion. Somebody might construe it to mean that the word is the last component of a concept, which would be mistaken in my opinion. As children we learn lots of words from other people, especially parents, and we treat the words as "attached" to the referents, not as "attached" to an idea called a concept. Rand's second sentence I quoted above appears to acknowledge this point. So does the first sentence of Bill Dwyer's quote from Rand in his last paragraph.

Using a file folder analogy, a word designating a concept is the label on the file folder. The bulk of the concept is the content in the file folder. For a child who doesn't yet have a word to use as a label, does the analogy imply there can be no concept w/o a word label or a folder folder without a label? I don't think so -- an image could be used to label the file folder.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/11, 8:51am)

Post 3

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:52am

Thanks, Bill.

I'm home now, so I can be more specific. Rand on page 19:

"The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word."

Page 164-5:

"...but to complete [the concept formation] process - and particularly to retain it, and later to automatize it - a man needs a verbal symbol. But as far as the process of concept- formation is concerned, the word is the result of the process"

"[retention] is a word's main function, but its function is not merely that. I meant exactly what I said: to complete the process............ It is for the purpose not only of retaining the concept but also of making and completing the process of concept formation.....in order for it not to remain a momentary impression or observation which then vanishes"

"prof d: so until the word was interposed, there would not in the strict sense be a concept?
AR: right.
prof d: An integration occurs which cannot yet be said to be a concept."

In other words animals could at most have impressions, quickly slipping back into raw data. Never culminating into a unit of thought.

Again, words are more slippery than concepts. When I think, the word to express the concept comes after the concept is in mind. This fact seems to work against the filing system idea, but I'm willing to concede that perhaps the symbol reinforces the duration I have the concept.

Post 4

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:58am

Thanks Merlin for your response.

Rand is more clear in the parts I quote above.

Please see my last paragraph of post 3 about the filing system idea. Is that really how it happens? Do you access the concept by means of the word?

Post 5

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:02am

Please see my last paragraph of post 3 about the filing system idea. Is that really how it happens? Do you access the concept by means of the word?

Maybe and maybe not. You might access a concept by observing an instance of it. For example, you see a skunk, access your concept SKUNK and decide to not get any closer.

Post 6

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:19am

Hmm. Then Rand would appear to contradict herself when she says that a child with no knowledge of words can form a concept wordlessly, and then says that the process is not complete without the addition of a word. Recall her statement, which I quoted in Post 1, viz.:

"The child does not think in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words), but that is the nature of the process which his mind performs wordlessly. And that is the principle that his mind follows, when, having grasped the concept "length" by observing the three objects, he uses it to identify the attribute of length in a piece of string, a ribbon, a belt, a corridor or a street." (ITOE, p. 11)

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/11, 9:39am)

Post 7

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:38am

Hmm. Then Rand would appear to contradict herself when she says that a child with no knowledge of words can form a concept wordlessly, and then says that the process is not complete without the addition of a word.

I find Rand's sentence vague like I said above, but don't find it clearly contradictory. Her using "complete" is vague in my opinion. When is a concept ever "complete"? Labeling a concept with a word does not mean the concept can't be later altered as you learn more about the concept's referents.

Post 8

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:57am

When is a concept ever "complete"? Labeling a concept with a word does not mean the concept can't be later altered as you learn more about the concept's referents.

Could you give an example of what you mean by the alteration of a concept? For example, would the concept "man" be "altered" by discovering some new fact about human physiology? I wouldn't think that the concept would be altered. Just as the concept "man" includes all men who live at present, who have every lived or will ever live, it also includes everything about them, known and unknown.

As Rand writes: "An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists: such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept 'man' does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed -- it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as 'men'."

- Bill

Post 9

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 10:04am

A word, a perceptual tag which allows our minds to manipulate a concept as if it were a concrete, is like the handle on a suitcase or on a gallon jug of milk.

Post 10

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 10:28am

There must be something that stands for the concept. A concept would not be complete until it has been attached to a word/symbol/image/etc - whatever stands for that concept. If you use an image, or a symbol, it must become like a word. It must be understood as the referent for that concept - that is it's purpose. If I attach a tiny photo here in my sentence, your minds would be questioning and searching for the intended meaning - i.e., "What concept does Wolfer intend I bring up when I see that image?"

It doesn't matter whether the particular word/symbol/image existed before one's first personal attempt to put together the concept - which is what happened to us everyday in school where we were given new words and their concepts, or if the concepts were held in our minds in a fuzzy, or inaccurate fashion and we improved the concept attached to a word. Or maybe we put together a concept on our own and then decided what to call it. Or maybe we are half way through the process of integration and decide on a word or symbol to use, and then go back to completing the process. It doesn't seem to matter to me what point in the process the word is introduced. Look at "selfishness" - how many of us here had a different concept attached to the same word after reading "The Virtue of Selfishness"?

Rand is saying the process requires the attaching of a word to be a fully functional concept.

I can bolt an automobile engine to the frame and build the car around it, or I can wait till the car is done except for the engine and install it then. Either way the car isn't complete until the engine is installed.

I like the file folder analogy - because without some symbol/word/phrase on the tab that sticks up how would you find the concept you want when you want it - much less communicate it. Sometimes we access in a different way... searching for that folder that had a coffee stain, that we think was near the back of a drawer. But it is the words that let us communicate - and lets us string together thoughts. Otherwise we are trapped in the Crow's epistemology.
-----------

I sanctioned Ted's post, just above this. An excellent functional description. A very young child doesn't have words, but must have some form of internal tagging for a concept - otherwise they would become stuck at a level below where one builds concepts out of concepts (Crow epistemology). There is a stage where toddlers make up their own language - clearly serving a part of the function of our shared words. But words with proper definitions become objective handles. That gives us more accurate and efficient thinking as well as the ability to communicate instead of making noises at each other.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/11, 10:36am)

Post 11

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 10:53am

Could you give an example of what you mean by the alteration of a concept? For example, would the concept "man" be "altered" by discovering some new fact about human physiology? (Bill Dwyer)

Yes to the second question. I also refer you to ITOE. In the Definitions chapter Rand traces the development of the concept MAN starting in childhood. You might say that technically it is about the definition of "man", but the definition is part of the concept.

I wouldn't think that the concept would be altered. Just as the concept "man" includes all men who live at present, who have every lived or will ever live, it also includes everything about them, known and unknown.

Did you mean instead that the referents of the concept would not be altered?

Rand is saying the process requires the attaching of a word to be a fully functional concept. (Steve Wolfer)

That sounds better than Rand's expression 'completing a concept'. Having a word for the concept makes it a lot more functional -- it's a tool for talking, reading, and writing.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/11, 11:03am)

Post 12

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 11:26am

Essentially Bill said the same thing for which Steve has sanctioned me. just less metaphorically.

Part of Doug's problem is that he is conflating concepts with propositions and with arguments. ( I don't find anything confused in Rand's writing, although being dense it can be confusing on a first, second, or third reading.) One can have an implicit proposition in one's mind, yet struggle to find the right concepts to plug into it in order to make it explicit. In that sense the idea (the proposition) is prior to the words which express it.

The process of propositional thought is simply the brain chosing a starting point and an ending point in mental space and then choosing the relevant path to get from the one to the other. (We can say things in different ways because there is more than one potential neural and logical path between subject and predicate.) When our thoughts are expressed aloud this is called speech. We begin with an implicit subject (origin) and predicate (destination) the path between which we make explicit by choosing the proper stepping stones (words) and their proper arrangement (grammar) to express a complete thought.

Post 13

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 4:09pm

Good stuff.

So the agreed answer I'm getting from all responders is that a wordless concept is a concept in a full sense, however simply less functional than with a word. Just as a suitcase is still so even without the handle.

I'm not sure this is really what Rand's message was, given her direct speech in the q&a section. But who cares?! This seems sounder than the original in essence and description.

Thanks!

Post 14

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 4:40pm

Doug,

There is a larger portion of functionality missing than just not having a handle on a suit case. The analogy falls apart here because you don't need to build larger suitcases out of smaller suitcases, and so on and so forth. And if that did make sense that you could build a larger suitcase out of a bunch of small ones, you'd somehow have to understand that a handle would be needed on each small case to build those larger suitcases.

You can't hold all of the components of a set of concepts in your mind all at one time so as to have that more abstract concept that is being constructed. Without words you get locked in very close to the perceptual level.

In ITOE, Rand demonstrates the mental steps involved in grasping the concept of "Justice." I've left out the 15 or so sentences that lead up to the following section. Near the end of the paragraph she says, "Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man�s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is �justice.�

Try to imagine how one could perform this mental process of putting together a concept of "Justice," as she is doing there, without the words "concept," "judging," "character," "factual," "evidence" "evaluating," "objective," "moral," and "criteria." Tell us, with some descriptive language, what kinds of things would be held in the mind at the time you are integrating those concepts into the broader concept of "Justice." Do you get what I mean by the words being necessary to escape the level of epistemology appropriate to a crow?

Post 15

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 5:36pm

Steve,

While I concede that words solidify the concept, allowing for a far greater breadth of abstraction, my main purpose was delineating what counts as a concept and what doesn't.� I think it is clear that words are not essential to a concept's existence, while their�role is essential in other areas.� I think Rand's general point that words are essential for (far reaching) cognition, not just language, is salvaged by this conclusion.

I like your explanation of the limits of this analogy.� Yes, I understand and fully agree with the idea of cognitive economy.

One question for you:� It seems most people have a rough idea of justice, regardless of how many missing pieces they might have in being able to trace it down to perception.� In Rand's terms, this makes it a floating abstraction.� Does this status disqualify it from being a concept, or is it just a non-objective one?� In Objectivism, is a not-fully-objective concept a contradiction?

Btw, I'm leaving to SF and LA for a week, and likely won't be able to respond.
(Edited by Doug Fischer on 3/11, 6:54pm)

Post 16

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:24pm

Doug,

I'll let others answer your questions and just give you some thoughts off the top of my head.

I would say that without a word or some sort of symbol that a concept is attached to, it isn't complete and it isn't a concept - a car isn't complete and isn't a car until it gets its engine.

I am still of the opinion that without words (or some symbol) you aren't going to be able to go past the crow level - so we aren't talking about just the most abstract of concepts that require words.

The fact that a person can't trace their concepts down to the perceptual level doesn't necessarily mean that they are working with floating abstractions. A floating abstraction is using a concept that no one could trace to its perceptual roots because it doesn't have perceptual roots for anyone - even though a person might think it has roots, and thinks they can give you the roots, they might just be wrong and are making an error. If a person has trouble explaining what the referents are, they are at risk of having that concept become a floating abstraction. This doesn't fully agree with how others use the term. For me, we are talking about a logical fallacy, not just a degree of ignorance.

Post 17

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:47pm

Perhaps it would be helpful if Doug could list the six most important concepts he finds useful for which he does not have words?

An unnamed concept may be an implicit concept, right up to the point at which you name it. In most cases you will find there already is a word for the concept you wish you use. That is why thesauruses and vocabulary builders and the study of Greek and Latin are so wonderful.

Post 18

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 5:52am

Perhaps it would be helpful if Doug could list the six most important concepts he finds useful for which he does not have words?

How do you expect Doug to list them? Post pictures or videos? :-)

Post 19

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 4:06pm