Concepts

[Dontaskme]

Put yourself in the place of these pigs.

If that was you lying there, if you were pig consciousness, how do you think you would feel living like that everyday?

Do you honestly believe that to impose this cruelty on a living sentient intelligent organism is an acceptable thing to do?

Is this the end of suffering?

How would you like to try that idea out for yourself?

You absolute fucking lying hypocrites.

[roydop]

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.
.

Are you calling me a liar when I say I no longer suffer?

It is completely obvious that you are the only consciousness in your world. Therefore when there is peace and happiness within you there is only peace and happiness in your world. If there is really only a single consciousness then why would all beings need to transcend suffering?

You say "In essence no sentient being should ever have to suffer." and then turn around and say: " There is no such experience as the end of suffering." You seem confused.

You are saying that the fundamental tenets of the major religions are in error when they all point out that there is an end to suffering. The reason why nondualist say it's impossible to end suffering is simply because they are not ready to let go of the world and of experience. This is shown by their reluctance to still the internal monologue. They are addicted to their thoughts and can't let go. Nonduality is an abomination of Advaita Vedanta, created by those who are not ready for liberation

[Dontaskme]

You say "In essence no sentient being should ever have to suffer." and then turn around and say: " There is no such experience as the end of suffering." You seem confused.

There’s no such experience as the end of suffering as long as there are sentient feeling beings on the earth.
Life for sentient feeling beings is suffering. So not confused, just stating the obvious fact that until there is the complete absence of sentient life forms on this planet, suffering will be a permanent fact of life.


That’s all I’m saying.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

A picture represents a thousands words as a picture represents a myriad of meanings. Words, in these respects, are pictures (not only in the literal sense as the formation of symbols) considering they have multiple meanings as well. Even using your example of the "up escalator" this is ambiguous as well given it states "up" but does not describe how far up. Dually a phallic symbol does not describe the size or the shape of the phallis it represents.

[RCSaunders]

The picture of an arrow pointing up suffices.

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

A picture represents a thousands words as a picture represents a myriad of meanings. Words, in these respects, are pictures (not only in the literal sense as the formation of symbols) considering they have multiple meanings as well. Even using your example of the "up escalator" this is ambiguous as well given it states "up" but does not describe how far up. Dually a phallic symbol does not describe the size or the shape of the phallis it represents.

It was a joke.

[bahman]

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.

Totally disagree. Language is circular. There is no way that you can define a word avoiding circularity. How do we understand language? Tell me how.

[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.

Totally disagree. Language is circular. There is no way that you can define a word avoiding circularity. How do we understand language? Tell me how.

Back in the days when I was running some electronic engineering groups I taught some classes on telephony, signal analysis, and information theory. The hardest part of that job was trying to explain things like four phase encoding to those who did not even understand what a wave form was. I'm having the same problem here trying to explain concepts to someone who does not even know what language is.

[bahman]

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.

Totally disagree. Language is circular. There is no way that you can define a word avoiding circularity. How do we understand language? Tell me how.

Back in the days when I was running some electronic engineering groups I taught some classes on telephony, signal analysis, and information theory. The hardest part of that job was trying to explain things like four phase encoding to those who did not even understand what a wave form was. I'm having the same problem here trying to explain concepts to someone who does not even know what language is.

How do you resolve circularity in language?

[RCSaunders]

How do you resolve circularity in language?

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!

[bahman]

How do you resolve circularity in language?

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.

[RCSaunders]

How do you resolve circularity in language?

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.

[Skepdick]

A word is only a symbol that represents a concept.

So what does the word "concept" represent?

[RCSaunders]

A word is only a symbol that represents a concept.

So what does the word "concept" represent?

Concepts

[Skepdick]

A word is only a symbol that represents a concept.

So what does the word "concept" represent?

Concepts

That's circular.

[Belinda]

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...

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.

Thus e.g. some people would claim God is ineffable and others would claim God is effable. It would be impossible to have a concept of what an ineffable God might be unless the concept of effable God preceded the concept of ineffable God.

Now that I come to think of it,concepts that don't reflect themselves e.g. a dog, or a mug of coffee, depend on what is not a dog or not a mug of coffee, however the dependence in those cases is not sequential as it is for concepts that reflect themselves.