Philosophers are Inventors of Concepts

[Reconstructo]

I think the creative aspect of philosophy is too often overlooked. Philosophers add new words with novel meanings to our vocabulary. They change our mental models of both ourselves and our experience.

We see existence thru the lenses of our concepts. So philosophers invent new perspectives on the world and also on past philosophers.

Here's a little oracular utterance (not for the uptight logic-chopper). Man is God and he's not to seventh day yet, for man continues to create the world with every new description of it, for man lives in his descriptions of the world.

[Stansfield]

I disagree that concepts are invented. They are identified.

Take "tree" for instance. You can look at forrests from any perspective you'd like, the concept tree will still refer to exactly the same set of entities.

That's why what the French decided to call arbre is exactly the same concept as tree. They identified the concept, they didn't use their imagination to invent it.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

I disagree that concepts are invented. They are identified.

Take "tree" for instance. You can look at forrests from any perspective you'd like, the concept tree will still refer to exactly the same set of entities.

That's why what the French decided to call arbre is exactly the same concept as tree. They identified the concept, they didn't use their imagination to invent it.

It seems to me that some concepts (especially technical concepts) are invented, like Kant's concept of the analytic or synthetic judgment, or Hegel's dialectic. But some concepts are identified as you say. Like the concept of tree or dog. And for the concept, mammal, it is a bit of both.

[Reconstructo]

We slice up reality with our concepts. We had to frame this complicated thing we call a tree. We had to separate it from not-tree. We had to decide that the roots were part of the tree but that the dirt was not. This is what Hegel means by abstraction. If we consider anything in isolation from the totality, we have abstracted it, pulled it out.

So I disagree even that a concept like tree is identified. But I also don't remember any particular philosopher inventing "tree."

Are these intentionally shallow responses? The question is asked in earnest. I thought this was a philosophy forum. I know it's Christmass time and all, but try to forget about trees and basketballs. Try to understand before you disagree.....

It's fun.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

We slice up reality with our concepts. We had to frame this complicated thing we call a tree. We had to separate it from not-tree. We had to decide that the roots were part of the tree but that the dirt was not. This is what Hegel means by abstraction. If we consider anything in isolation from the totality, we have abstracted it, pulled it out.

So I disagree even that a concept like tree is identified. But I also don't remember any particular philosopher inventing "tree."

Are these intentionally shallow responses? The question is asked in earnest. I thought this was a philosophy forum. I know it's Christmass time and all, but try to forget about trees and basketballs. Try to understand before you disagree.....

It's fun.

Are we talking about the concept of tree, or the word, "tree"? No philosopher invented the concept "tree", but, as I pointed out, Kant was a philosopher and he invented the concepts of analytic and synthetic judgments, and also invented the terms, "analytic" and "synthetic". And I am glad he did, too.

I don't know whether those responses are shallow. They are not obscure if that is what you mean by "deep". In any case, I hope they are true. "Shallow but true" is, I think, much better than "deep but false".

[Reconstructo]

Dodge the issue. I insist. You are so not false. You are so tuned in to the Truth which will set us all free.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It seems to me that some concepts (especially technical concepts) are invented, like Kant's concept of the analytic or synthetic judgment, or Hegel's dialectic. But some concepts are identified as you say. Like the concept of tree or dog. And for the concept, mammal, it is a bit of both.

What the OP is implying is that concepts are not produced in accordance with the facts of reality, but instead by the "reality" of our own minds.

I agree with you that Kant and Hegel's reality is purely of their own mind's creation, and the rationalizations you mentioned are as well, but the concepts I use (such as mammal, morality, or dephasing gradient) reflect reality.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

We had to decide that the roots were part of the tree but that the dirt was not.

Discover, not decide. Is it your position that deciding the dirt is part of the tree would not have been a factual error?

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Are these intentionally shallow responses? The question is asked in earnest. I thought this was a philosophy forum. I know it's Christmass time and all, but try to forget about trees and basketballs. Try to understand before you disagree.....

Try arguments instead of presumptuous metaphors followed up by insults.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

What the OP is implying is that concepts are not produced in accordance with the facts of reality, but instead by the "reality" of our own minds.

I agree with you that Kant and Hegel's reality is purely of their own mind's creation, and the rationalizations you mentioned are as well, but the concepts I use (such as mammal, morality, or dephasing gradient) reflect reality.

Discover, not decide. Is it your position that deciding the dirt is part of the tree would not have been a factual error?


Try arguments instead of presumptuous metaphors followed up by insults.

Sorry. I never said what you impute to me about roots and trees and dirt. I don't even know what it means. You are quoting the wrong bloke.

[Reconstructo]

The concept of "mammal" is a human creation. So is the concept of "morality."

We divide sense-data into objects.

We make the facts. A tree is only what we say it is. Another more holistic thinking species might not distinguish the dirt from the tree or even the tree from its environment.

Of course we will tend to divide reality at convenient points -- those points which give us pleasure. The pleasure of a meal. The pleasure of a victory at war. Aesthetic pleasure. The pleasure of feeling that we understand a world that would otherwise be a threatening flux.

We project being on becoming.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Sorry. I never said what you impute to me about roots and trees and dirt. I don't even know what it means. You are quoting the wrong bloke.

I apologize, the last two quotes are of the other fella', as well as the responses. I'll try to edit them, if I still can.

The first part was for you though.