The Axiom Of Identity *Challenged*

[Hobbes' Choice]

Perhaps we could reitterate a previous post of mine

If you say you think there are some aspects about that object that dont have anything to do with concepts then that is a lie thinking cannot help but have something to do with concepts.

If the thought was about the aspects then those aspects (which are about the object) have to have something to do with concepts.As soon as you think of an aspect about something that aspect has to have something to do with concepts...which means all aspects about the object i.e the whole thinghave something to do with concepts unless you are not thinking about them. If you are not then how can you say anything about them much less that they have nothing to do with concepts.

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual .

If its the aspects themselves that have nothing to do with concepts and not the thought of them how can you say that given that you can only say what you are thinking about. That means everytime you consider these aspects they are being thought of (by you) So see the bold writing above also that qualifies it for inclusion in the definition. If a man always has a head that is what we define to be part of a man ..the day we see a man without one ....the day we consider an aspect of something without thinking (tell me if this is even possible)...then and only then..

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual.

PLEASE DON"T. It is no better the second time.

[Moyo]

Hobbes ; i hope you are not doing this on purpose so i will tr yet again.

Can you conceive of something that is not a concept?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes ; i hope you are not doing this on purpose so i will tr yet again.

Can you conceive of something that is not a concept?

Please, first respond to the post I made above dated: Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:12 am

But the short answer is yes.

The perception of a thing becomes a concept where is was not one before. "A CONCEPT" is not necessarily a natural category of perception but a newly perceived thing becomes integrated into a complex conceptual landscape.

[Moyo]

lease, first respond to the post I made above dated: Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:12 am

you seem to think i'm making a slight of hand when i talk about meaning.
So here is a short reply;

meaning happens in minds

if objective reality was meaningful it would have to be related to its meaning or, by transitivity, a mind, making it not be all that objective to begin with.

if it was not related to its meaning [is that what you are saying] then by that it would be meaningless , to which i ask what are you reffering to.

you beleive there is a reality outside of the mind that becomes known to the mind on discovery. i ask you what it meant before it was discovered since the action of discovery gives meaning. If it did mean something before it was discovered that means it was already known for it to have that meaning..if it didnt mean anything before discovery how would you reffer to it in this state since you can only reffer to meaningful things again otherwise what would you be reffering to.
meaning its impossible to reffer to it before it attains meaning or in other ways is transitively connected to a mind.

Seriously guy...

youre the one who beleives there are conceptions that are not conceptions.

The perception of a thing becomes a concept where is was not one before

Perception of a thing is a concept...can you show me an objective perception of a thing? so it was always a concept and there was never and can not be a situation where it wasnt one before.

you say it was not one before but the term not one before is a concept, or three "not" ,"one" and "before". So your are contradicting yourself.when you say both that thats what it was and yet it couldnt be since you gave concepts

[Moyo]

better post later

[Moyo]

One laaast try.

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective"

I want to see you repeat yourself silly ...and you still wont get it *sigh*

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is such a thing as "external reality" which is the "object" of our perception.
We know this is the case because we can agree.

Don't run away with the idea that I think "objective reality" is the thing we perceive. That is nothing more than an aspiration. Generally I suspect the rationale and the motives of those claiming to know what is, and what is not objective, as if "objective" was more real than subjective is.

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.

[Hobbes' Choice]

One laaast try.

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective"

I want to see you repeat yourself silly ...and you still wont get it *sigh*

Answer they are related to each other, because you have used the same letters. The only difference is that for some reason you have chosen to use BOLD on the first example and italics on the second.

[Hobbes' Choice]

you beleive there is a reality outside of the mind that becomes known to the mind on discovery. s

Not necessarily. Depends on what you choose to call "reality".
There is something we can both perceive that is not simply a concept.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Perception of a thing is a concept...can you show me an objective perception of a thing? so it was always a concept and there was never and can not be a situation where it wasnt one before.

I cannot show you any of my perceptions. I can show you the thing that is the object if my perception. It's almost like you do not know what subject and object mean.

If I hot you with a rock in the head, you say ouch! Now tell me the rick was nothing more than my concept! I suddenly make you painfully aware of a thing you did not know existed.

"Perception" is almost a synonym of subjective.

[Moyo]

One laaast try.

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective"

I want to see you repeat yourself silly ...and you still wont get it *sigh*

Answer they are related to each other, because you have used the same letters. The only difference is that for some reason you have chosen to use BOLD on the first example and italics on the second.

Dont cow out now..there is a reason they use the same letters...they are the same thing....

There is the concept "that which is objective"...how is it different from "that which is objective"

You KNOW what i mean.

Examine your own thought processes as you go to a philosophy forum (world class) and try convince someone that "A" is not equal to "A".

[Hobbes' Choice]

One laaast try.

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective"

I want to see you repeat yourself silly ...and you still wont get it *sigh*

Answer they are related to each other, because you have used the same letters. The only difference is that for some reason you have chosen to use BOLD on the first example and italics on the second.

Dont cow out now..there is a reason they use the same letters...they are the same thing....

There is the concept "that which is objective"...how is it different from "that which is objective"

You KNOW what i mean.

Examine your own thought processes as you go to a philosophy forum (world class) and try convince someone that "A" is not eqaul to "A".

You are crazy. By your own standards you know the only difference is the italics and the bold. I have shown you an object of my perception and YOU HAVE AGREED with me. You also note that there is a difference between bold and italics.
Thus you recognise the DIFFERENCE IN MEANING>
Case Closed.

[Moyo]

Hobbes...i removed the bold and italics when i rephrased it here;

There is the concept "that which is objective"...how is it related to "that which is objective"

You know what i mean...all i know is "A" is equal to "A" .

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes...i removed the bold and italics when i rephrased it here;

There is the concept "that which is objective"...how is it related to "that which is objective"

You know what i mean...all i know is "A" is equal to "A" .

No I don't know what you mean. REALLY.

A is never equal to A except in a conceptual way. All practical and experienced instances of A have differences.
For example, no two apples are the same. 1 apple=1apple is a convenience.

But this is an aside. I really don't know where you want to go with this.

[Obvious Leo]

you beleive there is a reality outside of the mind that becomes known to the mind on discovery. i ask you what it meant before it was discovered since the action of discovery gives meaning. If it did mean something before it was discovered that means it was already known for it to have that meaning..if it didnt mean anything before discovery how would you reffer to it in this state since you can only reffer to meaningful things again otherwise what would you be reffering to.

I think your use of the word "discovery" in this context is more than a little confusing. Meanings are not discovered but constructed.