Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998
Questions about Epistemology
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>Miss Rand defines similarity on pg. 13 of ITOE (2nd edition) as
"the
>relationship between two or more existents which possess the
*same*
>characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree" (my
emphasis).
>
>My question is: is there any circularity involved in this argument?
This is not a circularity because "same" is referring to the
conceptual common denominator (CCD) -- i.e. the wider context --
in which the individual characteristics are being considered. In
your own example of differentiating colors, the characteristic
of *having color* is the same for each item considered, but the
colors are not the same. The colors can be considered similar
only in the context of relating them to other items that have
color, as opposed to, say, weight or length.
Epistemology basically comes down to identifying man's ability
to selectively focus on aspects of existence or entities. To
differentiate blue from red, one has to selectively focus on the
fact that this thing and that thing have color, as opposed to
the other characteristics the item has. This is called
abstracting. Once the abstracting is accomplished, one can then
focus one's attention more by realizing the colors are not the
same in a different respect. The characteristic of color has the
*same* relationship to the entity that possesses it for each of
the items observed, even though the colors themselves *are not
the same* in relation to each other. However, since one has
selectively focused on *one* characteristic of the items (the
CCD), the unity of the observation can be retained by forming a
concept for the colors that are *similar* as compared to the
other colors observed.
I think this is also an answer to your other question about
equilateral and equiangular triangles. "Equilateral" selectively
focuses on the lengths of the sides, whereas "equiangular"
selectively focuses on the angles -- even though each concept
has the same referent (the triangle as a whole).
