Concepts

[RCSaunders]

Most of the supposed problems of epistemology are due to the absurd philosophers have explained concepts concepts including Plato's mystic "real" essences, Hume's view of concepts as fuzzy little images in one's head, Kant's abomination of concepts meaning their definitions and Wittgenstein's asserting concepts mean whatever way words are used.

Rid of all their mystical, metaphysical, and skeptical mumbo jumbo, concepts are quite easy to understand.

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is.

An existent is whatever its attributes (qualities, characteristics, and properties) are. Every existent has some attribute or attributes that are different from all other existents, else they would not be different existents. Many existent have some attribute that are the same as the attributes other existents have. When existents share many attributes or more significant ones, like the attibute, "mass," or the attribute, "life," it is epistemologically useful to identify all such existents collectively as, "physical entities," if they have mass for example, or, "organisms," if they have the life attribute, for example. The shared attributes or combination of attributes of existents of the same category is sometimes referred to as those existence's, "essence." One of the biggest mistakes in epistemology is mistaking, "essence," which is purely epistemological, with some mystical ontological or metaphysical, "essence," ala Plato.

All books are books because they all have the attributes that differentiate books from all other kinds of existents, but every actual book will have some attributes that are different form those of all other books. All existents of the same kind will all have all the attributes that identify that kind of existent, but every one of those existents will have one or more attributes that are different from those of all other entities of the same class or category.

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it points to an actual book and that is what it means.

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, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, and know, and use the world that exists.

[Skepdick]

A concept consist of a word and a definition just as a sentence consists of a subject and a predicate.

Have you heard of the concepts of ineffability and impredicativity?

They are rather difficult concepts to define...

[RCSaunders]

A concept consist of a word and a definition just as a sentence consists of a subject and a predicate.

Have you heard of the concepts of ineffability and impredicativity?

They are rather difficult concepts to define...

Of course some things are hard to define, and literature is full of, "words," which do not represent any concepts at all. Do you see some problem with epistemology in that?

Both ineffable and impredicative have very specific definitions. Perhaps you only find it difficult to understand them. Changing -le or -ve to -lity or -vity only turns those words from adjectives into noun forms identifying the adjectives. Even if ineffable or impredicative were totally fictional, ineffability and impredicativity would be nouns (concepts) identifying those fictions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Most of the supposed problems of epistemology are due to the absurd philosophers have explained concepts concepts including Plato's mystic "real" essences, Hume's view of concepts as fuzzy little images in one's head, Kant's abomination of concepts meaning their definitions and Wittgenstein's asserting concepts mean whatever way words are used.

Rid of all their mystical, metaphysical, and skeptical mumbo jumbo, concepts are quite easy to understand.

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is.

An existent is whatever its attributes (qualities, characteristics, and properties) are. Every existent has some attribute or attributes that are different from all other existents, else they would not be different existents. Many existent have some attribute that are the same as the attributes other existents have. When existents share many attributes or more significant ones, like the attibute, "mass," or the attribute, "life," it is epistemologically useful to identify all such existents collectively as, "physical entities," if they have mass for example, or, "organisms," if they have the life attribute, for example. The shared attributes or combination of attributes of existents of the same category is sometimes referred to as those existence's, "essence." One of the biggest mistakes in epistemology is mistaking, "essence," which is purely epistemological, with some mystical ontological or metaphysical, "essence," ala Plato.

All books are books because they all have the attributes that differentiate books from all other kinds of existents, but every actual book will have some attributes that are different form those of all other books. All existents of the same kind will all have all the attributes that identify that kind of existent, but every one of those existents will have one or more attributes that are different from those of all other entities of the same class or category.

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it points to an actual book and that is what it means.

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, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, and know, and use the world that exists.

Concepts expressed through art do not have words or definitions attached to them yet exist through a form which points to something higher. A concept cannot be limited to a word or definition.

[RCSaunders]

Most of the supposed problems of epistemology are due to the absurd philosophers have explained concepts concepts including Plato's mystic "real" essences, Hume's view of concepts as fuzzy little images in one's head, Kant's abomination of concepts meaning their definitions and Wittgenstein's asserting concepts mean whatever way words are used.

Rid of all their mystical, metaphysical, and skeptical mumbo jumbo, concepts are quite easy to understand.

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is.

An existent is whatever its attributes (qualities, characteristics, and properties) are. Every existent has some attribute or attributes that are different from all other existents, else they would not be different existents. Many existent have some attribute that are the same as the attributes other existents have. When existents share many attributes or more significant ones, like the attibute, "mass," or the attribute, "life," it is epistemologically useful to identify all such existents collectively as, "physical entities," if they have mass for example, or, "organisms," if they have the life attribute, for example. The shared attributes or combination of attributes of existents of the same category is sometimes referred to as those existence's, "essence." One of the biggest mistakes in epistemology is mistaking, "essence," which is purely epistemological, with some mystical ontological or metaphysical, "essence," ala Plato.

All books are books because they all have the attributes that differentiate books from all other kinds of existents, but every actual book will have some attributes that are different form those of all other books. All existents of the same kind will all have all the attributes that identify that kind of existent, but every one of those existents will have one or more attributes that are different from those of all other entities of the same class or category.

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it points to an actual book and that is what it means.

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, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, and know, and use the world that exists.

Concepts expressed through art do not have words or definitions attached to them yet exist through a form which points to something higher. A concept cannot be limited to a word or definition.

No point in wasting words then. Just go ahead and explain that without using words--just to prove your point. Perhaps you can say it with a little picture, sculpture, or a song and dance.

[Impenitent]

scotch on the rocks, hold the scotch

just ice

-Imp

[Peter Holmes]

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

I think your description of a concept is confused. A concept can't be both a-word-plus-a-definition-of-an-existent and 'the actual existents identified by the definition [the] concept refers to and means'. This is to muddle up the way things are and what we say about them - which is precisely what the later Wittgenstein set about painstakingly to disentangle.

To define a word is to describe or explain the way(s) we use the word - for example, to name things. By contrast, to define any other feature of reality is to describe it - typically linguistically, using names. And these are two completely different linguistic operations. And the existence and nature of features of reality, outside language, have nothing to do with language - with names or descriptions - whatsoever.

On top of this, your description of concepts has little in common with the standard dictionary definitions I've come across. And words can mean only what we use them to mean - snapshots of which uses appear in dictionaries.

I think concepts, like propositions, are misleading metaphysical fictions - invented to flesh-out and justify talk about minds containing mental things and events. (Most dictionaries refer to concepts as mental rather than physical things.)

[RCSaunders]

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

I think your description of a concept is confused. A concept can't be both a-word-plus-a-definition-of-an-existent and 'the actual existents identified by the definition [the] concept refers to and means'. This is to muddle up the way things are and what we say about them - which is precisely what the later Wittgenstein set about painstakingly to disentangle.

To define a word is to describe or explain the way(s) we use the word - for example, to name things. By contrast, to define any other feature of reality is to describe it - typically linguistically, using names. And these are two completely different linguistic operations. And the existence and nature of features of reality, outside language, have nothing to do with language - with names or descriptions - whatsoever.

On top of this, your description of concepts has little in common with the standard dictionary definitions I've come across. And words can mean only what we use them to mean - snapshots of which uses appear in dictionaries.

I think concepts, like propositions, are misleading metaphysical fictions - invented to flesh-out and justify talk about minds containing mental things and events. (Most dictionaries refer to concepts as mental rather than physical things.)

Yes, I can see how you use those, "metaphysical fictions," to explain those fictions. As you understand them, you are absolutely correct. They are fictions.

But they are in no way related to anything I explained.

[roydop]

It's all about SYMBOL.

Symbol exists in a superposition of existing in both the physical realm and thought realm simultaneously. Our thoughts are our future selves that exist is the digital realm presently being created.

There will be an extinction event within 2 decades and this will coincide with the technological singularity. The reason why human consciousness is helplessly addicted to the screen is because consciousness is constructing a new realm in which to inhabit, and the more attention we give the digital realm the more it appears real.

The closer we get in time to this singularity the more the thought realm will "leak in". This is what thought is and this is why it is increasing within human consciousness at an exponential rate.

[RCSaunders]

This is what thought is and this is why it is increasing within human consciousness at an exponential rate.

Well the human race does seem to be becoming more idiotic every day. This post is a good example.

[roydop]

This is what thought is and this is why it is increasing within human consciousness at an exponential rate.

Well the human race does seem to be becoming more idiotic every day. This post is a good example.

I no longer suffer. I have no problems in life and sit around in absolute happiness all day. You can't stop thinking can you? Not even for 10 seconds.

How are you doing?

The proof of my theory is based upon my very life. All I'm offering is an end to suffering. Funny how this simple message is so vehemently opposed by some.

[RCSaunders]

This is what thought is and this is why it is increasing within human consciousness at an exponential rate.

Well the human race does seem to be becoming more idiotic every day. This post is a good example.

I no longer suffer. I have no problems in life and sit around in absolute happiness all day. You can't stop thinking can you? Not even for 10 seconds.

How are you doing?

The proof of my theory is based upon my very life. All I'm offering is an end to suffering. Funny how this simple message is so vehemently opposed by some.

Good grief! What makes you think I'm anything but totally happy and satisfied with life. Bit of hubris, there, I think!

[Eodnhoj7]

Most of the supposed problems of epistemology are due to the absurd philosophers have explained concepts concepts including Plato's mystic "real" essences, Hume's view of concepts as fuzzy little images in one's head, Kant's abomination of concepts meaning their definitions and Wittgenstein's asserting concepts mean whatever way words are used.

Rid of all their mystical, metaphysical, and skeptical mumbo jumbo, concepts are quite easy to understand.

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.

A word is a symbol, and is totally arbitrary. It can be almost anything that can be drawn, signed, or articulated. The word only represents the concept in a way that can be physically seen, heard, or felt (Braille).

The definition is anything, a description, explanation, selection from a list (taxonomy) or simply pointing at something, that indicates what existent or kind (category) of exitents is meant by the concept.

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is.

An existent is whatever its attributes (qualities, characteristics, and properties) are. Every existent has some attribute or attributes that are different from all other existents, else they would not be different existents. Many existent have some attribute that are the same as the attributes other existents have. When existents share many attributes or more significant ones, like the attibute, "mass," or the attribute, "life," it is epistemologically useful to identify all such existents collectively as, "physical entities," if they have mass for example, or, "organisms," if they have the life attribute, for example. The shared attributes or combination of attributes of existents of the same category is sometimes referred to as those existence's, "essence." One of the biggest mistakes in epistemology is mistaking, "essence," which is purely epistemological, with some mystical ontological or metaphysical, "essence," ala Plato.

All books are books because they all have the attributes that differentiate books from all other kinds of existents, but every actual book will have some attributes that are different form those of all other books. All existents of the same kind will all have all the attributes that identify that kind of existent, but every one of those existents will have one or more attributes that are different from those of all other entities of the same class or category.

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it points to an actual book and that is what it means.

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, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, and know, and use the world that exists.

Concepts expressed through art do not have words or definitions attached to them yet exist through a form which points to something higher. A concept cannot be limited to a word or definition.

No point in wasting words then. Just go ahead and explain that without using words--just to prove your point. Perhaps you can say it with a little picture, sculpture, or a song and dance.

The picture of an arrow pointing up suffices.

[RCSaunders]

Concepts expressed through art do not have words or definitions attached to them yet exist through a form which points to something higher. A concept cannot be limited to a word or definition.

No point in wasting words then. Just go ahead and explain that without using words--just to prove your point. Perhaps you can say it with a little picture, sculpture, or a song and dance.

The picture of an arrow pointing up suffices.

I bit ambiguous, no? Is it a phallic symbol or indicator of the up escalator.

[Dontaskme]

This is what thought is and this is why it is increasing within human consciousness at an exponential rate.

Well the human race does seem to be becoming more idiotic every day. This post is a good example.

I no longer suffer. I have no problems in life and sit around in absolute happiness all day. You can't stop thinking can you? Not even for 10 seconds.

How are you doing?

The proof of my theory is based upon my very life. All I'm offering is an end to suffering. Funny how this simple message is so vehemently opposed by some.

Even I used to believe this bullshit, but thankfully, I no longer do believe it.

So I'm calling you out on this bullshit post.

'I exist' is a concept known. Concepts do not experience sensation. Only nothingness experiences itself. So there is no conceptual I who does not suffer, who has no problems, who is in absolute happiness all day. There is no such experience as the end of suffering. If just one sentient being is suffering, then we are all suffering. Pain is an unavoidable process of a sentient organism. In essence no sentient being should ever have to suffer. And so the only way suffering could possibly end permanently, is for all sentient feeling entities to not exist in the first place. Only Non-existence cannot know suffering.



.