I feel that many will resist seeing reality as conceptual, and only conceptual (including of course that conceptualized Other/"sensation"). The "infinite" and the "transrational " are undeniably poetic concepts.. And then of course there is always the lure of the afterlife, or the hope of personality being more than accident (space time trash). Still, for me, it's nice enough to perceive the structure of things, and the beauty of this structure. What dies is not the best part of "self," but only a cell. True, no stems means no flowers...and the species may be extinct one day. They always warned us that sh*t happens. (I'd prefer this species to move into space, not keep all the eggs in one basket. )

Now, if only I knew what an absolute meaning was. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Why would you think I don't? Maybe you mean that I am not certain that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, for I might be mistaken. I agree with that.

I know about it because I have evidence for it. Lots. The mountain exists independently of experience, but why should that mean that experience is evidence for it? It doesn't. That the mountain can exist, and the experience of the mountain not exist, does not mean that the experience of the mountain cannot inform me that the mountain exists. I don't have to have been at Mt. Everest in order to know that Mt. Everest exists, anymore than I have to have been in Japan in order to know that it exists. My knowledge can be indirect as well as direct. Otherwise, how would I know that I was born?

Are you saying that you weren't present at your own birth?

:flowers:

Are you saying that you weren't present at your own birth?

:flowers:

Of course not. He just means he is not required to have direct first-hand experience that he was born in order to know that he was born--he can know this indirectly, by means of logical inferences, birth certificates, extremely likely probabilities, eye-witness testimony, etc., etc.

Ah, that's a good one. Yes, we must create even our personal histories from the sources available.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 02:14 AM ----------

It's not that the mountain exists only as concept, but that the mountain exists as a "mountain", as a unification of its qualities, only by means of concept. And that we can only talk about mountains because this unification has already occurred.

It just takes a leap of self-consciousness to realize that objects as delineated by the concepts that name and frame them.

It's easy to see that "justice" is more abstract than "cat." It's more difficult to see that "cat" is an abstraction, and still more difficult to see that even a proper name ("Fluffy") is an abstraction. Let's take this sentence as an example, the one you are reading now. Is that sentence a unity? Or is it just a sum of words? And are these words unities, or are they letters? We can even look at the letters as pixels, etc. And this applies to everything, except as we approach the limit, and create an abstraction for everything. The other limit is when we approach the most atomic, smallest "particle." At some point we realize that we can't help thinking in quanta. In unities. In ones.

Justice is not only more abstract than cat, but is total abstraction... Justice is a moral form in reference to a certain moral condition that is never the same twice...Not one ounce of justice has been measured on any scale, anywhere... It is not a matter of the senses, and is not a physical reality...As an infinite, justice is impossible to define, so it cannot be conceived of except as abstractions... Every true concept defines the object... No number of examples of justice will ever define justice in every conceivable or real situation... As a form of relationship between two people we can say that what those two decide justice is, -for them is justice...It is situational and individual...The reason we concern ourselves with it is that we find justice essential to life...People without justice die...

Are you saying that you weren't present at your own birth?

:flowers:

Ah, that's a good one. Yes, we must create even our personal histories from the sources available.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 02:14 AM ----------

It's not that the mountain exists only as concept, but that the mountain exists as a "mountain", as a unification of its qualities, .

The real is rational because the real has an intelligible structure. And to speak of the real at all requires a rational structure.

Law could be seen as a finite attempt to incarnate this "infinite" known as "justice."

What is true, of course, is that both the concept of the mountain exists, and the mountain exists. But they are different. What you happen to believe the mountain is, is irrelevant. I mountain consist of material like earth and stone, and most geologists agree with me. If you mean that the mountain has properties, and that the mountain consists of its properties, that is something different. But that is not inconsistent with the mountain consisting of what geologists says it consists of.

Concepts do not exist...Do memories exist, or emotions??? If they are a mental representation of a certain reality their existence is our own, for they are a meaning to us that without us would be no meaning...The mountain we might reason, would exist without us, but it would have no meaning without us...

I am just curious: do you think you sound smart by saying stuff like this?

...because you don't. Does it just sound cool to your own ears to say it, or something? You don't even have an argument for it.

Here is what is most intuitive to believe; and to think otherwise puts the burden of proof onto you:

Physical objects like mountains don' t have linguistic meanings. Words do.

Memories exist. I have a memory of going to work today. So my memory of going to work today exists, otherwise I would not be able to retrieve it.

Emotions exist. I feel emotions. We can even identify these emotions physiologically as sets of neurons, neurotransmitters, peptides, and other chemicals.

Concepts exist. Otherwise, you would not even be able to conceptualize a concept, or make abstractions, or even understand the world, or even notice similarities and disimilarities in the environment. Just like memories, in the past 3 or 4 years we have been able to make some discoveries helping us to identify the neurological substructure of token concepts physiologically in the brain.

Yes, but the very fact that justice cannot be defined means that law fails at delivering justice... If anything, justice is a dynamic relationship, and law is a static one, and time only makes the situation worse...It can in time be manipulated to deliver injustice instead of justice, or people can find their way around it...Situations change and no social form can be produced to anticipate change, and even when they are to an extent able to adapt to change, people can queer that too...

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 11:14 PM ----------

All words are concepts, or quasi concepts or conceptual manifolds...

And, if you think words would exist without you, consider then if they would exist with all of humanity dead.... I said earlier that love exists as meaning, but it is wrong to say concepts exist...Their existence is our own... You exist...Your emotions would not exist without you, while we might say a mountain would, but it would have no meaning without us....Mountains exist, but we give them meaning...You really have to work on this thing if you are ever going to be any good at it...

Words are not concepts. Words denote concepts. Words have meanings, and those meanings are often concepts. Words are strings of written ink, typed symbols, or uttered sounds that represent things, concepts, or other words. Obviously you don't even know the meaning of the word "word." You need to look up the definition of the word "word" in a dictionary.

Is the word "although" a concept? No. It is word. If it were a concept, then tell me what it is a concept of.



How is any of this an objection to what I said? Do you have a bad case of ADHD or something? Your persistent use of elipses "..." is proof to everyone that you can't hold the same thought for more than a few seconds at a time! So you don't even pay attention to what you read.

I said concepts, emotions, linguistic meanings exist. You say these things would not exist without us. Right, but they still exist now...

So you are wrong. These things exist.

And again, physical mountains don't have linguistic meanings. Only words do.

And again, where is your argument that shows lexicographers are wrong? You are not even discussing philosophy. You are attaching your own private meanings to words in opposition to dictionaries. I don't see any efforts to critically think on your own behalf. You're lazy. Both your inability to pay attention to what you read and your persistent use of elipses are proof of this.

So you need to take some of your own advice: "You really have to work on this thing if you are ever going to be any good at it."

Perhaps you will agree that some societies are and have been better than others, and that their laws are a manifestation of this. For instance, a limit on interest rates...a limit that doesn't enslave a population. Half of the US is in debt, or so I have read....

All words are concepts, or quasi concepts or conceptual manifolds...And, if you think words would exist without you, consider then if they would exist with all of humanity dead.... I said earlier that love exists as meaning, but it is wrong to say concepts exist...Their existence is our own... You exist...Your emotions would not exist without you, while we might say a mountain would, but it would have no meaning without us....Mountains exist, but we give them meaning...You really have to work on this thing if you are ever going to be any good at it...

What is the meaning of a mountain? (If that question makes any sense at all, which I doubt)?