[fifi]

I think I have read a mention of "political prisoners' in Ayn Rand's writing, but I am not sure where. I'd appreciate a reference.

I'm wondering if "political prisoner" is a valid concept.

I started with a rough definition of: "prisoners who are in jail not because they violated anyone's rights, but for 'political' reasons". Communist and totalitarian countries are notorious for keeping jails full of politcial prisoners.

The part of my rough definition that I find a bit vague is "political reasons". What are "political reasons"?

In some countries, people who help others commit suicide may be put in jail. This is not legitimate, but these are not "political prisoners". In some countries homosexuals may be jailed. They are not "political prisoners" either.

So, I tried another definition: "prisoners who are in jail not because they violated anyone's rights, but because they questioned the legitimacy of an illegitimate government".

So, the three essentials are:
1) Illegitimate imprisonment
2) Illegitimate government
3) Reason for imprisonment is for questioning the legitimacy of government

I like this definition, because it clarifies that no prisoners in places like the US are "political prisoners", even though their imprisonment may be illegitimate.

If anyone can offer me a better definition, I'd be happy to hear it.

[AwakeAndFree]

First of all, "political prisoner" is not a concept, but a combination of two concepts.

But to answer your question, the difference between a political prisoner and a regular prisoner is that the first's "crime" is his political orientation, and nothing more.

In terms of method, political prisoners are usually ordered into jail by the political leadership, rather than the judicial system.

In terms of status, many of them did not break any actual laws.

I should say that the fact there is no designated word for "political prisoner" in English is a very positive thing. In Hebrew there isn't one either - but if I'm not mistaken, there is one in Russian, and probably in other languages.

[fifi]

Quote

First of all, "political prisoner" is not a concept, but a combination of two concepts.

I realize this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that something with two WORDs has two CONCEPTs. Must every concept be represented by a single word?

Quote

But to answer your question, the difference between a political prisoner and a regular prisoner is that the first's "crime" is his political orientation, and nothing more.

Strictly speaking, people are usually not sent to jail purely for their orientation. That orientation has to manifest itself in some way. And it is this manifestation -- criticising the government, selling a banned book, having sex with a person of the same sex, etc. -- that is deemed criminal.

That's why the third essential I listed for the notion of a "political prisoner" was "Reason for imprisonment is for questioning the legitimacy of government".

[Betsy]

fifi, on Jun 23 2004, 07:45 PM, said:

I realize this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that something with two WORDs has two CONCEPTs. Must every concept be represented by a single word?

Not always.

In the case of "political prisoner," "prisoner" is a concept (a noun) modified by another concept, "political," that distinguishes what kind of prisoner we are discussing. Other times, both words in combination refer to one concept as in "water lily" which isn't any kind of lily.

[DavidOdden]

fifi, on Jun 23 2004, 08:45 PM, said:

Must every concept be represented by a single word?

There's no strict relationship between words and concepts. Full sentences can represent concepts (example: "Mammals are warm-blooded"), and addition, single words can represent multiple concepts ("boil", "dog" etc.). Also, the word "God" (in the western sense) does not represent a concept at all.

[DavidOdden]

erandror, on Jun 23 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

I should say that the fact there is no designated word for "political prisoner" in English is a very positive thing. In Hebrew there isn't one either - but if I'm not mistaken, there is one in Russian, and probably in other languages.

In the Soviet days, the word would be "grazhdanin"

[knuckles]

Quote

Quote

Must every concept be represented by a single word?

There's no strict relationship between words and concepts. Full sentences can represent concepts (example: "Mammals are warm-blooded"), and addition, single words can represent multiple concepts ("boil", "dog" etc.). Also, the word "God" (in the western sense) does not represent a concept at all.

I agree. I would add that someone might have formed a concept and someone else might not. One person might hold "political prisoner" as a single concept, while another might hold it as two concepts.

[AwakeAndFree]

knuckles, on Jun 24 2004, 05:36 PM, said:

I would add that someone might have formed a concept and someone else might not. One person might hold "political prisoner" as a single concept, while another might hold it as two concepts.

Whether it is a concept or not depends on the language, not the person. In English, the combination "political prisoner" is not a concept, because it is merely a decriptive combination of the kind of prisoner you mean.

If, for example, everyone started using "water lily" to designate political prisoners, I would say it is a concept - since the words themselves do not convey the meaning - and are used strictly as a name, a symbol that stands for the concretes.

[DavidOdden]

knuckles, on Jun 24 2004, 08:36 AM, said:

I agree. I would add that someone might have formed a concept and someone else might not. One person might hold "political prisoner" as a single concept, while another might hold it as two concepts.

There are at least two concepts, no matter what: "political" and "prisoner". The question is whether anyone could fail to form the concept "political prisoner", when they observe that collocation of words. It's important to understand that people can differ significantly as to the meaning of the concept, thus one person could consider a terrorist to be a political prisoner, so there is a lot of choice in the area of what is identified. Assuming that we're dealing with people who speak English well enough, I don't see how you could avoid forming the concept "political prisoner" in genus / speces fashion by recognising that a political prisoner is a type of prisoner, and that it represents more than one unit (measurement omission is thus satisfied). What kind of fact would indicate to you that a person hadn't formed a single concept from the parts?

[DavidOdden]

erandror, on Jun 24 2004, 09:00 AM, said:

In English, the combination "political prisoner" is not a concept, because it is merely a decriptive combination of the kind of prisoner you mean.

Can you elaborate on that? For example, "malamute" identifies the kind of dog I mean. So the fact of "identifying a type of" isn't primary (given that no doubt you would identify "malamute" as a concept). Are you claiming that just in case more that one units are identified by a transparent (compositional) expression using two or more words in a language, then the express is not a "concept"? And if so, why?

[fifi]

I started this topic in this forum, but it would be better in the Epistemology forum.

There appears to be disagreement about what a concept is. I better read Ayn Rand this weekend and see what she meant.

Meanwhile I have question about the water lily example.

Quote

Other times, both words in combination refer to one concept as in "water lily" which isn't any kind of lily.

Does this mean that if it water lilies were lilies, then "water lily" would not be a concept but two concepts?

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Quote

Whether it is a concept or not depends on the language, not the person.

So if I spoke Russian, which I don't, I could form a single concept equivalent to "political prisoner" because Russian has a single word for it, whereas English doesn't? What if I'm bilingual? Can I only hold that concept in my head so long as I'm speaking or thinking in Russian? Do I lose that concept when I go back to English? Your statement that the concept depends on the language, not the person, is entirely backwards. The concept depends on the consciousness, not the language. Epistemology is not dependent on semantics.

[AwakeAndFree]

Well - here is Ayn Rand's definition of concept, as the basis of this discussion:

Ayn Rand, on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, said:

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition

Now, as I understand it - a concept is a unit, a mental entity in itself. For example - simply saying "rational animal" while refering to man, is not a concept, since it is a form of definition - not a new entity. To have a new entity, a concept, you need to have both a definition and a symbol.

Ayn Rand writes:

Quote

Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity.

Now, I don't seem to find it right now, but I remember that she also said somewhere in ITOE that the process of concept-formation isn't finished until you unite it under a word, a symbol that gives it the status of a mental entity. That's my current position, even if I misremembered.

Now back to the first example: political prisoner is a kind of definition: you have the genus (prisoner) and the differentia (political) what is missing to form a concept, rather than to simply have an identification - is to give it a word.

Now, you are free to do so - no matter what your language. You can invent new words. That's how concepts like Television came into being. However, the principle of Unit Economy, which AR heavily discussed in ITOE, means you should form this concept only if you have a real use of it, which will make it beneficial for you to have one concept instead a definition made of two concepts.

For example, I imagine scholars who study the history of the Soviet Union, borrow their word (grazhdanin, is it?) for this purpose.

[DavidOdden]

erandror, on Jun 24 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

I imagine scholars who study the history of the Soviet Union, borrow their word (grazhdanin, is it?) for this purpose.

Sorry, I admit that I am occasionally evil. That's the Russian word for "citizen". Mea culpa maxima.

[AwakeAndFree]

Well, at least I knew enough not to trust you completely!

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Ayn Rand @ IOE said:

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.
...
Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity.

So the identity, i.e. the existence, of a concept lies not in its name, but in its definition. Also, the name is not essential to the formation of a concept. What is essential is the method of formation and the definition.

[GreedyCapitalist]

DavidOdden, on Jun 24 2004, 08:00 AM, said:

In the Soviet days, the word would be "grazhdanin"

I do speak Russian, and I'm not aware of such a word. Grazhdanin means "citizen", and if this was intended as irony, it's well taken

Edit: Err, n/m I should read the entire thread before posting.

Edit 2: My mom, a Russian teacher, confirms that word is "politichesky zakluchyonniy," same as in English.

[fifi]

Quote

Does this mean that if it water lilies were lilies, then "water lily" would not be a concept but two concepts?

Beside this question, I'd recap the original question as two questions. Is "political prisoner" one concept or two? Either way, it is a valid concept/preconcept/mental integration. How to decide?

[GreedyCapitalist]

A political prisoner is a valid combination of two concepts. As Eran said, “you should form this concept only if you have a real use of it, which will make it beneficial for you to have one concept instead a definition made of two concepts.” If we were living in a dictatorship, it might be useful to form a such a concept, but fortunately, it’s not necessary.
If you are asking how do decide whether a concept is a valid, I think it’s as simple as asking "could the entity with the properties attributed to it exist in reality?”

[Betsy]

fifi, on Jun 24 2004, 09:35 AM, said:

Does this mean that if it water lilies were lilies, then "water lily" would not be a concept but two concepts?

That depends on the historical order in which someone formed the concept. If those were the ONLY lillies you knew about when you formed the concept "water lily" then it would be one concept. If you knew about other kinds of lilies and this was a sub-class, then there would be two concepts: the noun "lily" and the qualifier "water."