This is kind of circular as we can say that an object is a concept of an object of a concept ad infinitum. I should state that when it comes to this line of thinking I much prefer to take in a phenomenological perspective - meaning I don’t care about the conceptual distinction between apparent “object,” “subject” and/or “concept”. All is a “field” of phenomenon (singular as there is no plural of an eidetic being). — I like sushi
I suggest you examine the concept of 'existence' itself ! You may come to the conclusion that 'existence' simply implies 'human contextual functionality', and that ' expected physicality' is merely one aspect of that functionality. — fresco
If we can only conceive of abstract concepts and not objects, and seemingly, this must be so because we cannot fit objects into our mind, but only our conceptions of them, either objects do not exist in the actualized sense of the word, or they are at the same time both objects and concepts. — TheGreatArcanum
They are not one and the same just as effects are not the same as their causes. Concepts are about objects and their aboutness comes from the causal relationship between the object and the concept. Effects carry information about their causes. Effects can be representations of their causes.If we can only conceive of abstract concepts and not objects, and seemingly, this must be so because we cannot fit objects into our mind, but only our conceptions of them, either objects do not exist in the actualized sense of the word, or they are at the same time both objects and concepts. — TheGreatArcanum
I consider all absolutism to be religious, (absolute truth being the mythical crock of gold at the end of the rainbow), and it is you who appears to have the learning deficit.
Lets face it, your knee jerk reaction to post-modernism, which is largely embellishment of pragmatism, is a bit of a give away! I suggest you take seriously Rorty's warning that 'philosophy' per se has zero authority in epistemological matters relative to that of the sciences. This is particularly pertinent when considering the comparative physiology of perceptual system, or the Copenhagen iinterpretation of QM in which there are no 'things', only 'interaction events'. But then you may come to understand that when you extend your learning. — fresco
They are not one and the same just as effects are not the same as their causes. Concepts are about objects and their aboutness comes from the causal relationship between the object and the concept. Effects carry information about their causes. Effects can be representations of their causes. — Harry Hindu
our conception of the object has its origin in our perception of the object, — TheGreatArcanum
Do you have any source for that? — Wayfarer
we cannot conceive of the object without perceiving it, obviously, so our conception of the object has its origin in our perception of the object, — TheGreatArcanum
According to my philosophy, the Essence, involves Subjectivity, that is, Mind, or Consciousness in the absolute sense of the word. So the idea of a thing precedes the thing which precedes our perception and conception of the thing. — TheGreatArcanum
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.