tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:55 am
Your so-called proof depends on there being such things as concepts. I say that there are no such things as concepts. Instead of concepts, I say there are universals. The difference between a concepts and a universal is that while concepts are "
in" the mind and dependent on the mind, universals are "
external" to the mind and not dependent on it. The philosopher I like said that concepts are universals that have gone into exile in the mind.
You are entrapped by the 'container' metaphor, i.e. concepts are "in" the mind while universals are "outside" the mind.
https://glossary.sil.org/term/container-metaphor
Point is the container metaphor is a primal instinct which has survival value and is still necessary at present for a range of reality, e.g. common sense, science, etc. but at higher level of reality, this container metaphor loses its effective thus one has to shift paradigm.
This is how in Physics there is a shift from independent external object to observer dependent objects as in Einstein Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics. Point is this perspective of mind-dependent objects brought forth greater utilities, note quantum mechanics in the field of computer and other technology.
In the field of spirituality, higher spirituality also shift from ontological independent God and soul [theism] to the criticalness of the mind-dependent spirituality [as in Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies].
Independent driven theism has brought forth tons of terrible evil and sufferings to human and it with its rigidity has the potential to exterminate the human species at the rate it is going via the abuse of Science by SOME theists.
True, the non-theists could also abuse Science and exterminate the human species but non-theist is not any rigid ideology thus has room to progress towards the highest good.
The idea of an external world and the speculation of universals is useful and common sense but that is very primal and primitive.
Concepts are not "in" the mind.
We must never be entrapped by the container metaphor at all times.
Concepts are emerge spontaneously with reality, concepts are not 'in' the mind when it is necessary to reflect more deeply on reality to generate greater utility to humanity.
Thus "in" and "out" are emergences with the mind not independent from the mind.
A realist says that treeness is a universal that exists external to the mind and it is that that accounts for all trees being trees. A conceptualist says treeness is a concept that the mind has abstracted away from many particulars in the world. You cannot prove that conceptualism is true by assuming that treeness is a concept and that universals are really just concepts. That's not a proof. You have merely assumed that one side is right and the other is therefore wrong.
That treeness as a universal existing external to the mind is merely a convenience for the sake of communication. There is no real 'treeness'.
It is the same with concepts, they are emergences for a matter of convenience of realization and communication.
Note the dilemma with the platypus which has 'birdness' and 'mammalness' fused together, so which is which?
Is there such thing [universal] as an externalness of 'waterdroplet_ness' to account for all waterdroplets?
This is a matter of convenience not of reality.
To be realistic we should identify each water-droplet in terms of bundles of X-number of H2O molecules which is more realistic but that is not practical.
The point with universals existing independent of the mind is they cannot be verified to exists as real. How can you do that?
Whereas a concept of an apple is linked to empirical apples as observed.
At the end of the day, the concept an apple is always linked to some physical apples or drawings of an apple.