Philosophy Now Forum

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:17 pm 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!

Just look at a dictionary. A points to B and when looking up the definition of B it points back to A...a circle.

Definition:
"an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc."
"a clear or perfect example of a person or thing"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Explanation: "to make (something) clear or easy to understand" (ie "define")

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:31 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:17 pm 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!

Just look at a dictionary. A points to B and when looking up the definition of B it points back to A...a circle.

Definition:
"an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc."
"a clear or perfect example of a person or thing"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Explanation: "to make (something) clear or easy to understand" (ie "define")

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

You cannot learn epistemology by studying a dictionary.

You obviously did not understand the introductory article to this thread: "Concepts." A concept does not mean it's definition. A concept means the actual existents identified by the concept usually called its referents. A definition only specifies what those referents are. If that is not clear to you, please see the complete article, "Epistemology, Concepts."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:31 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!

Just look at a dictionary. A points to B and when looking up the definition of B it points back to A...a circle.

Definition:
"an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc."
"a clear or perfect example of a person or thing"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Explanation: "to make (something) clear or easy to understand" (ie "define")

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

You cannot learn epistemology by studying a dictionary.

You obviously did not understand the introductory article to this thread: "Concepts." A concept does not mean it's definition. A concept means the actual existents identified by the concept usually called its referents. A definition only specifies what those referents are. If that is not clear to you, please see the complete article, "Epistemology, Concepts."

One shortfall of your article is the lack of references to various views of the topic re 'Concept'.
This is where you simply blast 'Kant' [Kantian] without fully understanding how Kant presented the terms 'concept' and 'definition'. Show me some references to your critique of Kant's view re 'concept' and 'definition'.

Your addition of the term 'existents' to the term 'concept' confuses matter further.

One critical element you missed out in your articles is 'concepts' are always relative and conditioned by their specific Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. Science, politics, theology, economics, specific philosophy, etc.

You should at least include a reference to WIKI, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
which by default is limited but is 10 times better [more informative] than your presentation.

For a more philosophical perspective, note,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/

One can research more from the references and further readings in the above articles.

Suggest you update your article to align with the above.

Also suggest you research on the origin of the term 'concept.'
I have done that and I can cross check whether you have traced it correctly.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:31 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!

Just look at a dictionary. A points to B and when looking up the definition of B it points back to A...a circle.

Definition:
"an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc."
"a clear or perfect example of a person or thing"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

Explanation: "to make (something) clear or easy to understand" (ie "define")

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain

You cannot learn epistemology by studying a dictionary.

You obviously did not understand the introductory article to this thread: "Concepts." A concept does not mean it's definition. A concept means the actual existents identified by the concept usually called its referents. A definition only specifies what those referents are. If that is not clear to you, please see the complete article, "Epistemology, Concepts."

The statement above referred to the exclamation that "There is no, "circularity"."

1. Yet we use the language of dictionaries in definitions of phenomenon and epistemology is grounded in the means of through which it is described, ie "language"; when the definition of what is provided in the dictionary is changed it is changed relative to how the term is used in its new context which still necessitates a circularity between the language used and the context which justifies it (ie language is justified by context and the context is justified by language).

2. A concept is a definition as it is an image of one thing that points to another. As an image the concepts has limits which determine what it is and what it is not. As pointing to another thing the concept is further defined through its relations thus is defined by what it is connected to and what it is not connected too.

3. "There is no authority dictating the principles of epistemology" thus there is no authority in the article of epistemology. You negate yourself.

"Like all other principles, the nature of epistemology must be discovered"; this is an authoritative statement in the respect the author is dictating a principle of epistemology, ie "discovery". The article negates itself.

"Only an epistemology that explains how knowledge of reality is achieved, and makes it possible to know and understand that reality is a correct epistemology"; this is further another principle of epistemology the author dictates, ie "how" determines validity. The article again negates itself.

These premises of the article point to the inherent groundings of said article to be in a state of contradiction.