@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:But if we perceived a flower, would we truly know its name? And if we knew its name, would we truly perceive reality? Say I cooked a large bowl of chili. I added the beef, the beans, and the vegetables just so. But were I a vegetarian, would I perceive the bowl of chili as hearty? Would I not then prefer chunky chicken stew or the off brand tofu? Then why should we label the perceived bowl of chili when it potentially has conceptions other than meat? It is the potential in that bowl of hearty beef chili rather than the usurpations of chicken or tofu that reveals the nature of the chili. Hot, spicy, and potentially yummy... if somewhat obnoxiously gassy.
Beans, beans the magical legume; the more you eat, the more you boom.
You don't need names to percieve, but you need at least two of something to concieve of one thing in the two percepts. When you learn the names, say, of every concept you mentioned, you can more easily see concepts as forms of relationship, not only between concepts that are not the same, or concepts that are similar; but also between the people and the societies united by a common vocabulary. We do not just talk about all we percieve and concieve, but actually relate through, and around these forms. As long as people are talking they are not eating or killing each other. And the purpose of our forms is the relationship. If our forms do not work, we do not survive, and so are, out of the picture, so no relationship. The more we can abstract knowledge from reality, and concieve of it, the better are our chances of personal, and cultural survival. And when we survive, we pass on our genes and our forms to another generation, and they add to it, hopefully.
