Well Im glad you are aware of his political reputation, because that is directly correlated with his wisdom. Congratulations!!!

If you believe the concept and the thing are identical, then you are an idealist and I could present multiple arguments against idealism.

It is obvious that we have no direct access to the thing, so our concept of the thing is all we know, but that doesn't mean that our concept is the thing in itself. If it was, then our own opinion could not ever be proven wrong. The very existence of language and meaning allows us to understand the differences that exist between our perceptions. If you want to be practical then we can, but for all practical purposes you should be a bit more open minded because nobody has everything figured out.

I am pretty slimey, and if you think to label me you will be disappointed...When I say the concept is identical with the thing I am refering to the principal of identity common to all forms, which in science is called conservation...It is identity which allow the comparison of objects conceptually because when we know what a thing is conceptually we know what does not change in its nature. If we say that a piece of string is a line, and that a roll of yarn is a line what we are saying is that no matter what, their identity is conserved, so that no matter what we do in regard to the lines the identity of line remains, so when we compare length as a quality of all lines we compare length against the conserved quality of: Line... To have knowledge we must be able to judge change which we could not do if every quality were in flux... Nor would there be much point in comparing apples to oranges...So, if we say identity, line, or dog, or car, we are referencing the thing Line, or Dog, or Car... A is A... And if the name of the concept and the concept in our minds were not the reality conceived then our use of it as a mental object would be pointless...It is just that no thinking person should confuse the two because we must always compare our concepts with our realities if we would think clearly and tell truth...

MMP2506;133280 wrote:

What allows for identity to manifest in the mind? What about abstract concepts such as love, how could we compare our own concepts of love to love itself?

I don't know that stuff, but clearly our ability with concepts is a human ability that put us far above other animals...Not one concept is more abstract than another, but some are only abstractions, a certain meaning with no being...

Quote:

Im still trying to get hold of your statement,

"no difference between the idea and the thing."

When you call to mind a certain idea, like the idea of a dog, is there really some difference between the idea and the thing... The idea is an arrow pointed directly at the thing, and it is a judgement, of what it is and what its attributes are...So every concept is knowledge, as, if I have my Kant correct, knowledge is judgement, so we know by our ideas..

Quote:

If you could explain this in the context you used it maybe it would help me see where you are coming from, but you seem to be sidestepping it.

This seems to be implying more than that our concepts share properties with the things in itself. Of course practically speaking, people often assume that the experience and the thing are identical, and this may be where you are going, but I believe even this is assuming too much. In order to truly understand the world, you can't make such assumptions because they simply aren't true.

If you believe the concept and the thing are identical, then you are an idealist and I could present multiple arguments against idealism.

I think Fido is coming from a Kantian place when he says that. He and I have debated/discussed the concept quite a bit. It's not that the thing doesn't exist without concept, exactly, but rather that the thing doesn't exist as a unified thing without the concept. It's as if concepts were circles drawn around qualia and other concepts. A horse is a way of synthesizing the qualia we experience as horse. And of course the more abstract knowledge we have about horses is also synthesized in this concept. I've been obsessed with this issue lately. I think this is why Heidegger had to cross out Being, because we can only think in terms of unities/objects, but he wanted to get behind that, or circle everything?
regards from recon

Clearly, being can be conceived, and so we can add to our knowledge, correct our knowledge, and pass it on as concepts with culture.... Our most intransigent problems as human beings results from our moral forms, which are all infinites and so cannot be properly conceived of, so cannot be verified, and we are all walking around with subjective infinite notions which are a certain meaning without being, for example Justice, virtue, freedom, God, and life...

Clearly, being can be conceived, and so we can add to our knowledge, correct our knowledge, and pass it on as concepts with culture....

Our most intransigent problems as human beings results from our moral forms, which are all infinites and so cannot be properly conceived of, so cannot be verified, and we are all walking around with subjective infinite notions which are a certain meaning without being, for example Justice, virtue, freedom, God, and life...