Philosophy Now Forum

We experience and practice by non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldn't have any abstract thoughts in later stage of our lives if we didn't have non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could have abstract thoughts by having only non-abstract thoughts.

bahman wrote:We experience and practice by non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldn't have any abstract thoughts in later stage of our lives if we didn't have non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could have abstract thoughts by having only non-abstract thoughts.

All thought is abstraction. The difference between early an later years is the complexity, especially after becoming aware of our own thought/belief and then thinking about it.

bahman wrote:
We experience and practice by non abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts
when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldnt have any abstract thoughts in later
stage of our lives if we didnt have non abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could
have abstract thoughts by having only non abstract thoughts

All thoughts are abstract though only some are defined as such

creativesoul wrote:

bahman wrote: We experience and practice by non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldn't have any abstract thoughts in later stage of our lives if we didn't have non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could have abstract thoughts by having only non-abstract thoughts.

All thought is abstraction. The difference between early and later years is the complexity, especially after becoming aware of our own thought/belief and then thinking about it.

So lets to change the question: How possibly we could have a single abstract thought if all things we experience with our five senses are not abstract?

surreptitious57 wrote:

bahman wrote: We experience and practice by non abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts
when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldn't have any abstract thoughts in later
stage of our lives if we didnt have non abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could
have abstract thoughts by having only non abstract thoughts

All thoughts are abstract though only some are defined as such

Please read previous post.

bahman wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

bahman wrote: We experience and practice by non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. We however are able to have abstract thoughts when we become mature enough in later stage of our lives. We can be sure that we couldn't have any abstract thoughts in later stage of our lives if we didn't have non-abstract thoughts in early stage of our lives. So the question is that how possibly we could have abstract thoughts by having only non-abstract thoughts.

All thought is abstraction. The difference between early and later years is the complexity, especially after becoming aware of our own thought/belief and then thinking about it.

So lets to change the question: How possibly we could have a single abstract thought if all things we experience with our five senses are not abstract?

Because we can have apriori knowledge which is independent of experience.

Ginkgo wrote:

bahman wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
All thought is abstraction. The difference between early and later years is the complexity, especially after becoming aware of our own thought/belief and then thinking about it.

So lets to change the question: How possibly we could have a single abstract thought if all things we experience with our five senses are not abstract?

Because we can have apriori knowledge which is independent of experience.

I am not talking about apriori knowledge. I am talking about the thoughts which are related to our experiences. I am wondering that how we could have a thought about something we experienced?

bahman wrote:
I am wondering that how we could have a thought about something we experienced

Because we have a pre frontal cortex which has evolved to think abstractly

And a hippocampus which processes memories of our experiences

bahman wrote:...How possibly we could have a single abstract thought if all things we experience with our five senses are not abstract?

All thought is abstraction. So, the question amounts to how can we have thought if sensory experience consists of things that are not abstract? Firstly, not all experience is of things that are not abstract.

The better question is how could we have thought if sensory experience did not consist of things that are not abstract?

We form thought/belief solely by virtue of drawing correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or ourselves.

Ginkgo wrote:
...we can have apriori knowledge which is independent of experience.

This could be misleading. While it is most certainly true that we can know about some stuff without needing to experience that stuff, it is also most certainly not true that such knowledge(or any other) is independent of all experience.

Agree with those who say all thoughts are abstractions. "That is a bird" reduces an experiencing being to a cipher. In truth, we can't describe the reality of things. If not an ontological truth, Kant's noumena is at least a practical truth - no amount level of description with today's means can fully represent a living being, its experiences, processes and peccadilloes.

However, in 3D printing it's possible to fully describe inanimate objects mathematically, which is a type of abstraction, although these objects lack the complexity of most naturally occurring phenomena.

creativesoul wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
...we can have apriori knowledge which is independent of experience.

This could be misleading. While it is most certainly true that we can know about some stuff without needing to experience that stuff, it is also most certainly not true that such knowledge(or any other) is independent of all experience.

It can't be both. Is it independent of language or not?

A proposition is apriori if it is known to be true independent of experience. That is to say, is independent of the experience of language. In other words, if we know the meaning of the terms used then we don't need experience to know the truth of some propositions. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is apriori.

Ginkgo wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
...we can have apriori knowledge which is independent of experience.

This could be misleading. While it is most certainly true that we can know about some stuff without needing to experience that stuff, it is also most certainly not true that such knowledge(or any other) is independent of all experience.

It can't be both. Is it independent of language or not?

How does this address what I wrote?

A proposition is apriori if it is known to be true independent of experience. That is to say, is independent of the experience of language. In other words, if we know the meaning of the terms used then we don't need experience to know the truth of some propositions. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is apriori.

I'm rejecting the notion of apriori knowledge. Knowing the meaning of terms requires experience.

creativesoul wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
This could be misleading. While it is most certainly true that we can know about some stuff without needing to experience that stuff, it is also most certainly not true that such knowledge(or any other) is independent of all experience.

It can't be both. Is it independent of language or not?

How does this address what I wrote?

A proposition is apriori if it is known to be true independent of experience. That is to say, is independent of the experience of language. In other words, if we know the meaning of the terms used then we don't need experience to know the truth of some propositions. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is apriori.

I'm rejecting the notion of apriori knowledge. Knowing the meaning of terms requires experience.

Yes I know, I already said that.Why propositions can be said to be apriori is contained in the following quote:

A Priori and A Posteriori

The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori.

The distinction between the two terms is epistemological and immediately relates to the justification for why a given item of knowledge is held. For instance, a person who knows (a priori) that "All bachelors are unmarried" need not have experienced the unmarried status of all—or indeed any—bachelors to justify this proposition. By contrast, if I know that "It is raining outside," knowledge of this proposition must be justified by appealing to someone's experience of the weather.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

All "thoughts" are subjective - and therefore "abstractions" compared to anything which measurements can describe.

That is what people mean by thought.