Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:29 am2 Concept analysis. Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind - which is, of course, a concept.
Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever.
So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve?
It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words.
Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else.

The above is discussed within the moral & ethics perspective.

Here's from AI [wR];

AI wrote:The statement is a provocative critique of conceptual analysis. It presents a rather extreme view that concepts are essentially meaningless constructs.

Let's break down the key points and evaluate their validity:


1. "Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind":
Overly dismissive: This statement dismisses the entire notion of concepts, which are fundamental to human thought and communication.
Ignorance of cognitive science: While the concept of 'mind' is complex and debated, to outright dismiss it as a myth is to ignore a vast body of scientific research.

2. "Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever":
Oversimplification: This is a hasty generalization. While simply labeling something a concept might not provide a full explanation, it is a starting point for analysis.
Neglects the role of concepts: Concepts are the building blocks of our understanding of the world. They allow us to categorize, reason, and communicate effectively.

3. "So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve?
It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words":
Partial truth: It's true that language is often crucial to conceptual analysis, as words are the primary vehicles for expressing concepts.
Overlooks other methods: However, conceptual analysis can also involve examining the underlying structures of thought, exploring the relations between concepts, and identifying necessary and sufficient conditions.

4. "Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else":
Challenge accepted: While many examples could be provided, a classic one is Plato's analysis of the concept of 'justice' in The Republic. Plato moves beyond mere linguistic analysis to explore the nature of justice as a virtue and its implications for society.
Conclusion:

The given statement, while provocative, is ultimately a simplistic and inaccurate representation of conceptual analysis. It overstates its case by dismissing concepts as mere fictions and reducing conceptual analysis to mere linguistic analysis. While language is important, conceptual analysis is a richer and more complex endeavor.

Point is one of the main purpose of philosophy is to contribute to the well being and flourishing of the invidual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
The use of 'concept' in philosophy is a very effective communication tool for the above purpose.
It is very philosophically immature to reject the use of concepts within philosophy.

Anyone here agree "Concepts are empty fictions"; Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever?

Discuss??
Views??

Notes:

Talk about concepts rests on the completely unsupported assumption that there are two kinds of things: physical things and non-physical or abstract things.

For example: there are dogs (physical things); there's the word 'dog' (a physical thing); and then, supposedly, there's the concept of a dog (a non-physical or abstract thing).

Cunning extension: Because a dog is a real or physical thing, the concept of a dog is a 'concrete concept'. Whereas, because an abstract thing is not a real or physical thing, the concept of an abstract thing, such as the concept of justice, is an 'abstract concept'.

Polish this as sophisticatedly as you like, it remains a turd.

Question: What and where are non-physical or abstract things, and in what way do they exist?
Ancient stock answer: They are mental things (or, in posh, objects or entities) that exist in the mind.
Question: What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?
Ancient stock answer: The mind is a non-physical or abstract thing.

Rinse and repeat. This circular, self-sustaining nonsense has passed muster for millennia.

For example, on UK Radio 4 yesterday, an 'expert' said that a living organism that reacts to other living organisms can be said to have a concept of mind.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:16 am Talk about concepts rests on the completely unsupported assumption that there are two kinds of things: physical things and non-physical or abstract things.

For example: there are dogs (physical things); there's the word 'dog' (a physical thing); and then, supposedly, there's the concept of a dog (a non-physical or abstract thing).

Cunning extension: Because a dog is a real or physical thing, the concept of a dog is a 'concrete concept'. Whereas, because an abstract thing is not a real or physical thing, the concept of an abstract thing, such as the concept of justice, is an 'abstract concept'.

Polish this as sophisticatedly as you like, it remains a turd.

Question: What and where are non-physical or abstract things, and in what way do they exist?
Ancient stock answer: They are mental things (or, in posh, objects or entities) that exist in the mind.
Question: What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?
Ancient stock answer: The mind is a non-physical or abstract thing.

Rinse and repeat. This circular, self-sustaining nonsense has passed muster for millennia.

For example, on UK Radio 4 yesterday, an 'expert' said that a living organism that reacts to other living organisms can be said to have a concept of mind.

Your thinking is so shallow and narrow.

What is critical is all humans are 'programmed' to survive at all costs till the inevitable. As such knowledge and language are critical to facilitate survival.

What is wrong with knowing what is a physical dog/tiger [ontological] and concept of dog/tiger [linguistic, epistemology].
The concept of what is a tiger is obviously very important to educate those who have not seen a physical tiger that 'tiger' [as described conceptually] is a dangerous animal that one must avoid a tiger so as not be eaten alive.

The concept of mind is also very critical.
If one can read the 'mind' of others to know they are dangerous, that could save one's life when encountering people with evil or dangerous mind.

What is critical is whatever the end results, it must be supported by rationality and critical thinking rather than on blind faith.

Something is obviously wrong with your rigid thinking.

Whilst you condemn concepts and abstractions, you are ignorant your
"what is fact" is based on conceptualization and abstraction which are frivolous - note Betti's "Against Fact"

AI wrote:Her [Betti's] final answer: There's no special "thing" that makes a fact a fact. The idea that there's a difference between a fact and just a bunch of things together is wrong.

Instead, she suggests:

Things in the world connect directly with each other without needing something extra to make them connect.
This means we don't need to invent "facts" to explain how the world works.
So, the problem of what makes a fact a fact disappears because it was based on a wrong idea to begin with.

This also affects the idea that facts are needed to make things true. Betti thinks we can explain truth without using facts.

For example, on UK Radio 4 yesterday, an 'expert' said that a living organism that reacts to other living organisms can be said to have a concept of mind.

This [theory or concept of mind] is critical to understand 'Autism' and how to deal with it.

If the majority of people were to adopt your beliefs [no concepts, no mind, no abstraction], the world would be a worst place than it is at present.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:16 am Talk about concepts rests on the completely unsupported assumption that there are two kinds of things: physical things and non-physical or abstract things.

Isn't 'assumption' problematic in the same way?

For example: there are dogs (physical things); there's the word 'dog' (a physical thing); and then, supposedly, there's the concept of a dog (a non-physical or abstract thing).

Cunning extension: Because a dog is a real or physical thing, the concept of a dog is a 'concrete concept'. Whereas, because an abstract thing is not a real or physical thing, the concept of an abstract thing, such as the concept of justice, is an 'abstract concept'.

Wouldn't 'being cunning' be a similar thing? It sounds like 'an attitude couple with a cognitive skill'.

Polish this as sophisticatedly as you like, it remains a turd.

Question: What and where are non-physical or abstract things, and in what way do they exist?
Ancient stock answer: They are mental things (or, in posh, objects or entities) that exist in the mind.
Question: What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?
Ancient stock answer: The mind is a non-physical or abstract thing.

It's a reification sure. But that holds for 'brain' also. The brainis actually interconnected with the rest of the body and is changing matter and it all sorts of processes. It's not a thing. 'It' changes all the time and is artificially separated from the rest of the body for practical reasons. It works well to treat it as a thing rather than as a process and a changing set of physical contents. It's useful to treat it is as thing. I don't think one has to be committed to dualism to use the word 'concept' or 'thought' or 'belief' or 'idea'. Everyone reifies in speech because of the incredibly efficiency of doing so.

Rinse and repeat. This circular, self-sustaining nonsense For example, on UK Radio 4 yesterday, an 'expert' said that a living organism that reacts to other living organisms can be said to have a concept of mind.

has passed muster for millennia.

[/quote]So, what language would you use for the change when a child, the Piagian stage, where a child realizes (is that word taboo?) that another person does not know what she knows? We can use perspective, but where is that and what is it made of. How would you describe the point where the child realizes the other person didn't see where the test taker put the now hidden ball so they other person will choose incorrectly. Now that child is.........
what?

Where is the self-sustaining nonsense and how does it sustain itself and what is it made of? Assertions? How could assertions self-sustain?

And note, in no way is the above an argument in favor of dualism. I am trying to understand why a very practical and effective way of communicating is bad and necessarily entails dualism and then how one is supposed to avoid doing this. I can't really see how your post avoids it.

If there are useless fictions, it seems possible there are useful ones. I certainly think it's a useful one. But I'm not sure it's a fiction either. Language is always using short cuts, metaphors, reifications, even in non-fiction texts.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:15 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:16 am Talk about concepts rests on the completely unsupported assumption that there are two kinds of things: physical things and non-physical or abstract things.

Isn't 'assumption' problematic in the same way?

Do you think an assumption is a non-physical or abstract thing? And if so, why?

For example: there are dogs (physical things); there's the word 'dog' (a physical thing); and then, supposedly, there's the concept of a dog (a non-physical or abstract thing).

Cunning extension: Because a dog is a real or physical thing, the concept of a dog is a 'concrete concept'. Whereas, because an abstract thing is not a real or physical thing, the concept of an abstract thing, such as the concept of justice, is an 'abstract concept'.

Wouldn't 'being cunning' be a similar thing?

Do you think 'being cunning' is a non-physical or abstract thing? And, if so, why?

Polish this as sophisticatedly as you like, it remains a turd.

Question: What and where are non-physical or abstract things, and in what way do they exist?
Ancient stock answer: They are mental things (or, in posh, objects or entities) that exist in the mind.
Question: What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?
Ancient stock answer: The mind is a non-physical or abstract thing.

It's a reification sure. But that holds for 'liver' also. The liver is actually interconnected and a process. It's not a thing. 'It' changes all the time and is artificially separated from the rest of the body for practical reasons. It works well to treat it as a thing rather than as a process and a changing set of physical contents. It's useful to treat it is as thing. I don't think one has to be committed to dualism to use the word 'concept' or 'thought' or 'belief' or 'idea'. Everyone reifies in speech because of the incredibly efficiency of doing so.

Do you think a liver is a concept, thought, belief of idea? Do you think hepatology is the science of an undifferentiated, interconnected process? Can you step in the same river twice?

Rinse and repeat. This circular, self-sustaining nonsense For example, on UK Radio 4 yesterday, an 'expert' said that a living organism that reacts to other living organisms can be said to have a concept of mind.

has passed muster for millennia.

Yes, it has. Do you think an amoeba has a theory of mind? Or when, in evolution, did or does a life form get a mind, without which having a theory of mind is, presumably, impossible?

So, what language would you use for the change when a child, the Piagian stage, where a child realizes (is that word taboo?) that another person does not know what she knows? We can use perspective, but where is that and what is it made of. How would you describe the point where the child realizes the other person didn't see where the test taker put the now hidden ball so they other person will choose incorrectly. Now that child is.........
what?

Aware that others are not extensions or aspects of 'me'. Or something like that. Certainly, the claim that the child has developed or acquired a theory of mind is ridiculous.

Where is the self-sustaining nonsense and how does it sustain itself and what is it made of? Assertions? How could assertions self-sustain?

Certainly, mentalist talk - the language game - about mental things and events - is built into everyday language. But I was referring to the circularity of such talk - which I think your earlier questions illustrate. I'm asked: 'Do you deny the existence of the mind?' 'Well, I deny the existence of non-physical or abstract things, for the lack of evidence.' 'Okay, show me the physical mind.'

And note, in no way is the above an argument in favor of dualism. I am trying to understand why a very practical and effective way of communicating is bad and necessarily entails dualism and then how one is supposed to avoid doing this. I can't really see how your post avoids it.

Practical and effective way of communicating what? Why do we need the concept of the liver in order to talk about livers? The word 'liver' does just fine for the purpose of communication.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 12:44 pm Do you think an assumption is a non-physical or abstract thing? And if so, why?

Is it a physical thing? Where is it and what is it made of? My point was that the same argument that calls concepts empty fictions can be aimed at assumption also.

For example: there are dogs (physical things); there's the word 'dog' (a physical thing); and then, supposedly, there's the concept of a dog (a non-physical or abstract thing).

Cunning extension: Because a dog is a real or physical thing, the concept of a dog is a 'concrete concept'. Whereas, because an abstract thing is not a real or physical thing, the concept of an abstract thing, such as the concept of justice, is an 'abstract concept'.

Wouldn't 'being cunning' be a similar thing?[/quote]

Do you think 'being cunning' is a non-physical or abstract thing? And, if so, why?

Same as above. It's a combination of a skill and attitude and the latter seems to me to be vulnerable to the same critique you aimed at use of 'concept'.
Also 'think' in your question to me above, seems of the same category.

Do you think a liver is a concept, thought, belief of idea? Do you think hepatology is the science of an undifferentiated, interconnected process?

My point is that all words are shortcuts or fictions. The whole idea of a noun is a fiction, especially if you want to deal with brains, which is the example I should have used, rather than livers, since it is more relevant and more obviously a radical short-cut/reification noun for a set of ever changing processes. I think the term is a reification. It's referring to a process as if it was a thing. It's referring to something that is changing all the time as if it is not.

Do you think hepatology is the science of an undifferentiated, interconnected process?

What is hepatology made of and where is it? What is this 'science' you refer to? Sounds like mentalist talk. People who label themselves scientists/medical personnel do a bunch of stuff related to what they call livers. What is this 'science'? What is it made of? It sounds like a concept people have summarizing some mental set of processes, when in fact there are just physical processes. It sounds like a concept masquerading as a thing.

Can you step in the same river twice?

With brains? No. We can't. We can go on saying that brain, or his brain, or my brain, but no, we are referring to 'something' where there are changing process that do not stop. In terms of matter, patterns, electromagnetic states 'it' is always something other and never the same. It is influenced by the immune and endocrine systems all the time. It is constantly being affected by causes coming from the sensory system and these are never the same - the light, smells, posture of the person, sounds, are all changing all the time and affecting this 'brain'. What happened that day is affecting the EM fields, matter and subjective experiences of that 'brain'. Words enter brains via vision or hearing (for most) and make changes. No, you can't 'step' into the same brain twice.

So, what language would you use for the change when a child, the Piagian stage, where a child realizes (is that word taboo?) that another person does not know what she knows? We can use perspective, but where is that and what is it made of. How would you describe the point where the child realizes the other person didn't see where the test taker put the now hidden ball so they other person will choose incorrectly. Now that child is.........

[/quote]
Aware

That sounds mentalist.

that others are not extensions or aspects of 'me'. Or something like that. Certainly, the claim that the child has developed or acquired a theory of mind is ridiculous.

It's more than being aware they not extensions of me. It is the ability to figure out what the other person will conclude, given what they experience which is nto the same as me. There was no concept of being an extension of me. It's just the children in the pre-stage of this acted sort of as if they considered others extensions. But suddenly they do have a concept of what anotehr mind is experiencing.
Now you could say brain, but I think that's a bizarre formulaiton. And it's not just the brain, it's the whole person and it's very hard to separate out that particular organ. Could you explain the change in the now aware child in purely physical terms?

Where is the self-sustaining nonsense and how does it sustain itself and what is it made of? Assertions? How could assertions self-sustain?

Certainly, mentalist talk - the language game - about mental things and events - is built into everyday language.

Then I would suggest it is probably useful. Of course, things can become habits and not be useful, but in this case I think the kinds of weird constructions we'd have to use to just use physical words would be very awkward and probably misleading in other ways. And it's not just in everyday language but in professional language in most fields.

Practical and effective way of communicating what? Why do we need the concept of the liver in order to talk about livers? The word 'liver' does just fine for the purpose of communication.

I am saying that words like concept, idea, cognition (rather than just changes in neuronal firing or whatever one replaces it with, beliefs and even mind are useful. And this idealized liver, that category...where is that 'thing'? It's a short cut. We have lots of short cuts. Some people may believe that the word concept is necessary because it's a dualist universe. But I see no need for this to be entailed. We can say 'mind' when we want to talk about people in a certain way and brain when we want to talk about them in another way. Without some dualist mind, words just do things. Is what they do useful or not useful? They (words) are not magical containers for 'meaning'. Yes, someone who uses the word concept might be a dualist. Or they might not. Same with mind, belief, Idea, intention, attitude, consciousness, awareness. We don't have to give language the magical power of containing some inobservable internal meaning - which is a lot like a kind of mind inside the word. They do things and I think all these words do useful things. Of course, they can be used terribly also.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:29 am2 Concept analysis. Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind - which is, of course, a concept.
Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever.
So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve?
It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words.
Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else.

Concepts are not empty fictions.
The are only empty fictions when based on your ideology of philosophical realism [human independence] which is grounded on an illusion.

Concepts are real relatively to a specific framework and system.
One example of a reality based on concepts is currency.
Do you deny whatever value in Pound Sterling stated in your bank statement is not real?
If you received currencies in coins or pieces of paper, you do not perceive the real abstracted concepts and value in them?

Here's from AI[wR]:

Currency as a Concept
Abstract representation: At its core, currency is a concept, representing a unit of value. It's an abstract symbol that facilitates exchange.
Social construct: Its value is derived from societal agreement and trust.
Legal tender: Its status as legal tender is a legal construct, reinforcing its conceptual nature.

Currency as a Reality
Tangible forms: While the concept of currency is abstract, it often has physical manifestations (coins, banknotes).
Economic function: It serves real-world economic functions, such as medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account.
Political influence: Currency policies are influenced by political decisions, grounding it in reality.

Currency within Frameworks
Economic framework: Currency is integral to economic systems. Its behavior is influenced by economic factors like supply, demand, interest rates, and inflation.
Political framework: Governments issue and regulate currency, making it subject to political decisions and goals.

Therefore, currency is both a concept and a reality. It's an abstract idea given tangible form and function within economic and political systems. The interplay between these aspects is what gives currency its complex nature.

Concepts are NOT empty fictions.

An exercise.

1 Describe 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your description. What have you produced?

2 Analyse 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your analysis. What have you produced?

3 Perform 1 and 2 above with 'the concept of justice'. (Or choose any abstract noun.) What have you produced?

Questions:

Why is talk about concepts useful? What purpose does it serve?
For what is the word 'concept' a shorthand?
What's the difference between a concept and an idea? Is 'concept' just a posher word?
If 'to be in two minds' is a metaphor, why is 'to have an idea' or 'to form a concept' not a metaphor?

My point is this. Mentalist language games are metaphorical. And metaphors have their uses, as long as we don't try to use them outside their normal contexts. For example, is feeling happy the same as feeling a pain? Is having a mortgage the same as having an idea?

And the trouble with concepts is their function in these language games. The word 'concept' has a portentous seriousness and technicality that can make us think we're dealing with some kind of 'real' mental thing. We think that saying 'justice is a concept' identifies or explains something important.

Of course, saying 'justice is an idea' is just as empty. And analysing the idea of justice would be just as empty an operation.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:19 am An exercise.

1 Describe 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your description. What have you produced?

2 Analyse 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your analysis. What have you produced?

3 Perform 1 and 2 above with 'the concept of justice'. (Or choose any abstract noun.) What have you produced?

Questions:

Why is talk about concepts useful? What purpose does it serve?
For what is the word 'concept' a shorthand?
What's the difference between a concept and an idea? Is 'concept' just a posher word?
If 'to be in two minds' is a metaphor, why is 'to have an idea' or 'to form a concept' not a metaphor?

My point is this. Mentalist language games are metaphorical. And metaphors have their uses, as long as we don't try to use them outside their normal contexts. For example, is feeling happy the same as feeling a pain? Is having a mortgage the same as having an idea?

And the trouble with concepts is their function in these language games. The word 'concept' has a portentous seriousness and technicality that can make us think we're dealing with some kind of 'real' mental thing. We think that saying 'justice is a concept' identifies or explains something important.

Of course, saying 'justice is an idea' is just as empty. And analysing the idea of justice would be just as empty an operation.

Whilst concepts are fiction in one sense, they are very useful fictions in another sense.
While solid physical empirical things are really real, they are also abstraction and concept at the meta-level.

Resorting to AI to save time:

VA wrote:Me: I believe philosophy is a tool [conceptualization being on sub-tool] to facilitate the basic survival, well-being & flourishing of the human individuals and therefrom the human species.
If that is the case, how do the above conceptualization of 'dogness' and 'justice' contribute to the sustenance, maintenance and progress of humanity?

AI wrote:The Utility of Concepts: Dogness and Justice
Your perspective that philosophy, including conceptualization, serves as a tool for human survival, well-being, and flourishing is a compelling one.
Let's examine how the concepts of "dogness" and "justice" contribute to these ends.

The Utility of "Dogness"
While seemingly mundane, the concept of "dogness" has played a crucial role in human history:

Domestication and companionship: Understanding the characteristics of dogs led to their domestication, providing humans with protection, assistance in hunting, and emotional support.
Scientific advancement: Studying dogs has contributed to our understanding of genetics, behavior, and disease, with implications for both human and animal health.
Economic impact: The dog industry, including breeding, care, and related services, is a significant economic sector.
Cultural significance: Dogs have held various roles in different cultures, from religious symbols to status markers.

The Utility of "Justice"

The concept of justice is undeniably central to human society:

Social cohesion: Justice systems provide frameworks for resolving disputes, maintaining order, and protecting individuals' rights.
Moral development: The concept of justice informs our sense of right and wrong, guiding individual and collective behavior.
Political stability: Justice is a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring fairness and accountability.
Personal well-being: A just society promotes individual flourishing by protecting rights, providing opportunities, and creating a sense of security.

In essence, both "dogness" and "justice" are examples of how concepts, seemingly abstract, have concrete implications for human life. They contribute to our physical, emotional, and social well-being.

PH wrote:What's the difference between a concept and an idea? Is 'concept' just a posher word?

Kant differentiated between a concept and an idea.

Strictly:
A concept is extrapolated from something empirical, e.g. dog_ness, tree_ness, hunger, and so on.

An idea is extrapolated from something that has no empirical grounding, e.g.
the philosophical realists idea of a thing or a fact that is absolutely independent of the empirical conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
The other ideas are the absolute independent soul, freedom, the universe, and the father of all ideas, i.e. God.

Btw, there are a continuum of abstraction and conceptualization.
What you think is solid and physical [verifiable and justifiable by science], e.g. "that real cat on your lap" is also an abstraction and concept at the meta- level.
This is beyond you to grasp.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:19 am An exercise.

1 Describe 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your description. What have you produced?

2 Analyse 'the concept of a dog'. And look at your analysis. What have you produced?

3 Perform 1 and 2 above with 'the concept of justice'. (Or choose any abstract noun.) What have you produced?

Questions:

Why is talk about concepts useful? What purpose does it serve?
For what is the word 'concept' a shorthand?
What's the difference between a concept and an idea? Is 'concept' just a posher word?
If 'to be in two minds' is a metaphor, why is 'to have an idea' or 'to form a concept' not a metaphor?

It's useful in a lot of meta-level discussions in philosophy, linguistic, anthropology - comparing concepts of dog or kinship - cognitive studies. We're not talking about dogs. We're talking about the conception of a category. What makes something a dog? Does a wolfdog fall into that category? And then how do these concepts get reinforced or made (in brains). How is the concept of dogs in various literary figures' works being utilized? Not what does this or that dog do int he story, but how is the writer using our concept of dogs to convey things in the text?

My point is this. Mentalist language games are metaphorical. And metaphors have their uses, as long as we don't try to use them outside their normal contexts. For example, is feeling happy the same as feeling a pain? Is having a mortgage the same as having an idea?

Much of the language we consider literal is metaphorical. We're just used to it. 'outside their normal contexts'. What is a metaphor, but fairly abstract attributes being aimed at something else. Fine that's what your saying, but the word itself is metaphorical and dealing concepts.

'What purpose does it serve'? A word for allegience and interpersonal behavior applied to a 'word' or concept

'What's the difference between a concept and an idea?' Between, a spatial metaphor for a descriptive or use difference.

We've got dead metaphors, often because we used the motor cortex in the generation of words and, yes, concepts.
We've got active metaphors we are more aware of as metaphors.

The concept of justice could indicate some dualist thing, but justice itself seems rather mental to me. I certainly don't know where it is or what it's made of. Which, again, does not mean I am saying this demonstrate dualism or pluralism of substance. But it sure seems to be referring to something mental. Which may then actually be physical, but I sure don't want to talk about justice in physical terms, for the most part.

conceive this: is a dachshund on a tanning bed a hot dog?

-Imp

Q: What are truth, knowledge, justice, goodness, identity, and so on? (Insert the philosophical question of choice.)
A: Well, they're not physical things. So they must be non-physical or abstract things. So there are non-physical or abstract things. QED. I know, let's call them concepts.
Q: And where are those non-physical or abstract things?
A: Well, they have no physical (spatial and temporal) location. So they must be in a non-physical or abstract location. Ah, it must be the mind.
Q: And where is the mind?
A: Well, it has no physical (spatial and temporal) location. So it must be in a non-physical or abstract location, such as the mind.
C: So non-physical or abstract things exist in the mind, which is a non-physical or abstract thing that exists in the mind, which is a non-physical or abstract thing. And so on.

Stroll on.

Yes. But. 'The concept of justice could indicate some dualist thing, but justice itself seems rather mental to me. I certainly don't know where it is or what it's made of. Which, again, does not mean I am saying this demonstrates dualism or pluralism of substance. But it sure seems to be referring to something mental. Which may then actually be physical, but I sure don't want to talk about justice in physical terms, for the most part.'

Suggestion. Abstract nouns are not names of things of any kind, physical or non-physical. So they're not names of things that can be described or analysed. And so-called philosophical problems vanish on the instant.

Is PH's blather Wittgensteinian philosophy or something else?

I had a long chat with AI [wR]
(well actually just a really short one)

God wrote:In summary, Wittgenstein did not straightforwardly affirm or deny the existence of the mind. Instead, he shifted the focus to how we talk about the mind and use mental language. His later work suggests that understanding the mind involves looking at the public, practical use of language rather than positing a separate mental substance or realm.

That's a false dichotomy the size of the Mount Everest. How this guy was even considered a philosopher, let alone the greatest of the 20th century, is beyond me.

Notes: KIV