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.
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.