Concepts

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:20 pm Skepdick, each of these concepts reflects itself.The way to deal with them is to define what it is to be effable and what is to be predicative. Actually they both mean much the same , which is that the concept lends itself to descriptions or predicates.
Personally, I don't have a problem with reflexivity, but it's philosophers who reject "circular" (self-referencing, impredicative) definitions.
Belinda
Posts: 5252
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:29 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:20 pm Skepdick, each of these concepts reflects itself.The way to deal with them is to define what it is to be effable and what is to be predicative. Actually they both mean much the same , which is that the concept lends itself to descriptions or predicates.
Personally, I don't have a problem with reflexivity, but it's philosophers who reject "circular" (self-referencing, impredicative) definitions.
I never heard of philosophers rejecting self-referencing definitions. I wonder if you mean some philosophers?
Skepdick
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:35 pm I never heard of philosophers rejecting self-referencing definitions. I wonder if you mean some philosophers?
The term "circular reasoning", "circular definition" or "vicious circularity" is used as a dismissive tactic. A lot.
Belinda
Posts: 5252
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme, the picture you posted of suffering pigs in a factory ' farm' is horrendous. I saw one like it about a year or more ago and immediately stopped buying all pig products. Lots of people have done similarly. There was a news item today that German? Berlin ? universities are providing nothing but mainly vegetarian or vegan food at the request of students. Something is happening it is not all bad news.

Apologies for inserting irrelevant material.
Belinda
Posts: 5252
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:43 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:35 pm I never heard of philosophers rejecting self-referencing definitions. I wonder if you mean some philosophers?
The term "circular reasoning", "circular definition" or "vicious circularity" is used as a dismissive tactic. A lot.
Yes, I recognise these objections. I can't think of any specific objections. I wish I could. It seems odd that experienced philosophers have trouble with 'ineffable' and 'impredicatable' . For instance ineffable is often said of God, and this is understood because of the contrast between God and this world which is an effable world.

There was a fashion among philosophers to despise metaphysics, notably among logical positivists.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:59 am
bahman wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:40 pm
There is no, "circularity." I cannot imagine what you even mean by that unless you've been taken in by some Kantian (or logical positivist) perversion of epistemology that language consists of symbols that mean their definitions. Bah!
There is circularity in language. Words are defined in terms of other words. This leads to circularity.
That's what I thought you meant. A word is not a concept. A word is only a symbol that represents a concept. A definition is only a verbal description of what a concept identifies, i.e. the referrents which are the actual existents it means. A concept does not mean its definition. There is no circularity.
Concepts are also understood in terms of other concepts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6993
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:09 pm A concept consist of a word and a definition just as a sentence consists of a subject and a predicate.

Together, a word (the phsically perceiveable part of a concept) and a definition (an identification of an existent or category of existents by means of a cogent description or explanation) is a concept.

A word is not a concept.
A concept is not an abstraction.

It is the actual existents identified by the definition a concept refers to and means.
It means those actual existents with all that can be known about them whether anything is known about them or not.
The above description is insufficient to define what is a concept.

What is needed is the word and definition used must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

This is why we have concepts conditioned upon specific FSK, e.g. whatever is a scientific concept from the scientific FSK may not be applicable to say a medical or the FSK of a tribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle, the Talibans, etc.

As such a concept do not have absolute independent reality but only a relative reality that is conditioned upon its specific FSK.
Note also Wittgenstein's Language Game.

To insist a concept has a specific absolute meaning and reality is delusional.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Concepts

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:13 am What is needed is the word and definition used must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Did God tell you this or did you just make this nonsense up?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6993
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:13 am What is needed is the word and definition used must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Did God tell you this or did you just make this nonsense up?
As usual, you're making noises based on ignorance.

Note you wrote in the OP the following;
  • "Concepts are totally man-made, created as the means of identifying and holding in consciousness the ability to think about what is not directly perceived, ..."
I would add to the above, to think "systematically" about what is perceived i.e. systematic conceptualization.

The above implied it is man-made within a System [which you were ignorant of in another post]. Note it is 'system' as in 'system theory' NOT as as a system of ideology or whatever 'ism'.
Belinda
Posts: 5252
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Concepts

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:13 am What is needed is the word and definition used must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Did God tell you this or did you just make this nonsense up?
As usual, you're making noises based on ignorance.

Note you wrote in the OP the following;
  • "Concepts are totally man-made, created as the means of identifying and holding in consciousness the ability to think about what is not directly perceived, ..."
I would add to the above, to think "systematically" about what is perceived i.e. systematic conceptualization.

The above implied it is man-made within a System [which you were ignorant of in another post]. Note it is 'system' as in 'system theory' NOT as as a system of ideology or whatever 'ism'.
Yes, but remember some people will reply in a reactive not a reflective style.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Concepts

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:38 pm
Did God tell you this or did you just make this nonsense up?
As usual, you're making noises based on ignorance.

Note you wrote in the OP the following;
  • "Concepts are totally man-made, created as the means of identifying and holding in consciousness the ability to think about what is not directly perceived, ..."
I would add to the above, to think "systematically" about what is perceived i.e. systematic conceptualization.

The above implied it is man-made within a System [which you were ignorant of in another post]. Note it is 'system' as in 'system theory' NOT as as a system of ideology or whatever 'ism'.
Yes, but remember some people will reply in a reactive not a reflective style.
Very clever. A response that states a point and illustrates it simultaneously.
Post Reply