humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 10, 2:52 pm, TC wrote:

> I think we have different concepts of "concept".
> Mine is more like 1, yours I suspect like 2
>
> From Webster.com
> 1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
> 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

I don't mind either definition, but they won't get us very far here.

The first says nothing, though I like the second as it seems
to be a moderate tribute to Rand's approach.

But no definition from webster.com is going to help us
figure out whether we're building concepts from
percepts or "guessing all the way down."


> > > > So you'll give examples
> > > > of inborn concepts that include at least one that can be
> > > > discarded at will?
> > > Uniformity of time and space.
> > Holy shit! I assume that means we're born with the
> > concepts and too, yes?
>
> In my sense, I think so.

Cool. Is that three-dimensional space and
unidirectional time, and how do you know?


> Your implication was that I am demonstrating a low
> standard of proof. Them's "fighting words". QED

Then chill. I was saying you were offering NO standard
of proof, since all you offered was some guy quoting
"what's said."


> > > Try to be flexible. Or do you really think Rand knew
> > > all about how the mind works?
> > 'Scuse me? I don't think Rand knew very much at all
> > about that, at least in any detail. And I don't recall
> > her claiming that she did.
>
> Did you read ITOE?

Yes. So tell me where Rand implies that she's offering
details about neurology, or chemical interactions, or
genetic processes. Maybe I missed that part, or forgot it.


> > I thought we were talking about concept formation.
>
> Where do concepts form?

Most of us, brain. You, brain and ass I think!


> You assert there are NO, none, nada, inborn concepts.
> No is absolute.

Yes, that is the assertion. But even I'll admit that this
assertion could be wrong. I doubt that would change
very much about Rand's paradigm, though. I mean,
if we were born with thousands and thousands of usable
concepts, that would probably change things and Rand
would probably be wrong.

Youse guys can't even get a grip on what the hell
a concept is, but you know we're born with 'em.

Okay. You're not the first to claim spontaneous revelation!


> > I'm willing to take a look at
> > these "inborn concepts" you keep mentioning.
>
> I'll accept that there are none if there is a proof that
> there must be none.

How could there be such a proof, at this stage? That
there MUST be none? That would take an awful lot
of knowledge of this particular context, don't you think?

You'd probably appreciate this "proof":

Are concepts the product of conceptualization?

Does conceptualization happen in the absence of
a fully developed human brain?

I answer, Yes, No. You have to answer either Yes,
Yes or No, It doesn't matter. Which do you pick?


> > Gordon says it's okay to offer his fetching experience
> > with dogs. Why isn't it okay to offer my experience
> > with babies and humans?
>
> Babies come with mental contents so far as I can tell.
> I guess your results differ.

You guess wrong again. I would take "mental contents"
to be anything mental, which I would take as being pretty
much anything that has to do with our CNS, or at least the
brain end of it. So this would include crying with pain at
being stabbed with a knife, or laughing while being
tickled or made faces at. I don't see how the existence of
"mental contents" tells us that there are inborn concepts.

You're intimating YOUR definition of "concept," which is
basically "anything mental," since you've offered both
this and your previous cite of "psychological capacities."

I think that's a weak and non-defining definition of "concept"
and so won't take you anywhere. And as we've seen,
grasshopper, it hasn't.

I'll look at that cite when I have a bit more time.


jk