Conceptual Objectivity...
Philo: Welcome ‘stew, how are you?
Estudia: Just fine thanks. I’m here to learn about objectivity. So far I gathered that in order for thinking to be valid, we must adhere to reality. Isn’t that so?
Philo: That’s the general principle of all thinking. And because concepts are formed by a specific process as we have discussed, they are related to reality in a specific way. Because of this relationship the concept of objectivity enters the picture.
Estudia: Do concepts pertain to consciousness by itself or to existence?
Philo: Concepts are our human manner of integrating perceptual information. They are tools of our consciousness that works with things in reality. The conceptual faculty reduces real units by omitting their measurements. Concepts are formed by a consciousness relating to existents. So to answer your question, concepts pertain to both consciousness and existence. You must expend effort in order to conceptualize by perceiving existents, connecting them, omitting measurements and forming the abstraction that is the concept itself. It is a volitional process and that is crucial to understanding the objective nature of concepts. Perceptual objects are perceived by us automatically and are “out there” in reality. But conceptual objects are facts of the world reduced to a unit by the consciousness of a human being.
Estudia: So?
Philo: So, if you are asked where is a perceptual object what will you answer?
Estudia: Well if it is a chair, say, then I’d answer that the chair is “out there”, in the world and I am aware of it by an automatic process of my senses and my mind called perception.
Philo: Very good. And, so, if you are asked where is a conceptual object like furniture, what will you answer?
Estudia: Hummm... well, the concept furniture isn’t exactly out there “in the world” but neither is it in my own mind. Furniture is made up of all sorts of “real” objects which are facts of the world. Objects which are concretes like chairs, tables, beds, etc. but which have been reduced to a unit by the mind of a conceptual being.
Philo: That’s right, and we refer to conceptual objects like furniture or madness as universals. Now we said that we take concretes and integrate them into concepts when necessary, but not all concretes have to be integrated. We don’t have to find some essential characteristic to group the concrete with other concretes that have the same “essence” but different measurements. For example, we don’t have to form a concept to include all the 9mm bullets from all the homicide victims in a particular jurisdiction. We would just refer to them by this description using the concepts of “bullet”, “homicide”, “victim”, etc. In fact we could refer to the whole collection of various types and caliber of bullets by a general description. If we were to form a concept because of a need to refer to them often in some manner we could take the “essence” of “bullets”, omit the measurement of calibers, type (lead, jacketed, hollow-point, etc.), type of victim, manner of recovery, etc., and form a definition of “opencide bullet” as any projectile from any unsolved homicide. The definition is a statement of factual data which has been condensed by our human consciousness because of our need to think about those facts. The essence chosen from the definition are products of the relationship between our consciousness and existence. The essence is objective just like the concept.
Estudia: So, there are times when it is not appropriate to form and concept and others like in your “opencide” example when it is appropriate. Things we think about routinely are good candidates obviously. What else?
Philo: Well, a new scientific discovery like “prions”, new products like “ipods”, and complex relationships like “marriage”, “liberty”, etc.
Estudia: Well, the concept of “opencide” seems kind of borderline to me. Why not just use “unsolved homicide”.
Philo: You could, and the term “opencide” would probably be used only by someone using it routinely like a detective or firearms examiner say. If you can say it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you are going to say even if it’s bright red, it is a duck. But if it is bright red and made of metal and runs on batteries, it is going to be modified with something like, “It’s a robo-duck.”
Estudia: Got it, I think. Where do we go from here?
Philo: Next time, we’ll discuss the central question of epistemology.
Estudia: Which is?
Philo: Ha... nice try. Next time. I’ll see you later.
Estudia: Just fine thanks. I’m here to learn about objectivity. So far I gathered that in order for thinking to be valid, we must adhere to reality. Isn’t that so?
Philo: That’s the general principle of all thinking. And because concepts are formed by a specific process as we have discussed, they are related to reality in a specific way. Because of this relationship the concept of objectivity enters the picture.
Estudia: Do concepts pertain to consciousness by itself or to existence?
Philo: Concepts are our human manner of integrating perceptual information. They are tools of our consciousness that works with things in reality. The conceptual faculty reduces real units by omitting their measurements. Concepts are formed by a consciousness relating to existents. So to answer your question, concepts pertain to both consciousness and existence. You must expend effort in order to conceptualize by perceiving existents, connecting them, omitting measurements and forming the abstraction that is the concept itself. It is a volitional process and that is crucial to understanding the objective nature of concepts. Perceptual objects are perceived by us automatically and are “out there” in reality. But conceptual objects are facts of the world reduced to a unit by the consciousness of a human being.
Estudia: So?
Philo: So, if you are asked where is a perceptual object what will you answer?
Estudia: Well if it is a chair, say, then I’d answer that the chair is “out there”, in the world and I am aware of it by an automatic process of my senses and my mind called perception.
Philo: Very good. And, so, if you are asked where is a conceptual object like furniture, what will you answer?
Estudia: Hummm... well, the concept furniture isn’t exactly out there “in the world” but neither is it in my own mind. Furniture is made up of all sorts of “real” objects which are facts of the world. Objects which are concretes like chairs, tables, beds, etc. but which have been reduced to a unit by the mind of a conceptual being.
Philo: That’s right, and we refer to conceptual objects like furniture or madness as universals. Now we said that we take concretes and integrate them into concepts when necessary, but not all concretes have to be integrated. We don’t have to find some essential characteristic to group the concrete with other concretes that have the same “essence” but different measurements. For example, we don’t have to form a concept to include all the 9mm bullets from all the homicide victims in a particular jurisdiction. We would just refer to them by this description using the concepts of “bullet”, “homicide”, “victim”, etc. In fact we could refer to the whole collection of various types and caliber of bullets by a general description. If we were to form a concept because of a need to refer to them often in some manner we could take the “essence” of “bullets”, omit the measurement of calibers, type (lead, jacketed, hollow-point, etc.), type of victim, manner of recovery, etc., and form a definition of “opencide bullet” as any projectile from any unsolved homicide. The definition is a statement of factual data which has been condensed by our human consciousness because of our need to think about those facts. The essence chosen from the definition are products of the relationship between our consciousness and existence. The essence is objective just like the concept.
Estudia: So, there are times when it is not appropriate to form and concept and others like in your “opencide” example when it is appropriate. Things we think about routinely are good candidates obviously. What else?
Philo: Well, a new scientific discovery like “prions”, new products like “ipods”, and complex relationships like “marriage”, “liberty”, etc.
Estudia: Well, the concept of “opencide” seems kind of borderline to me. Why not just use “unsolved homicide”.
Philo: You could, and the term “opencide” would probably be used only by someone using it routinely like a detective or firearms examiner say. If you can say it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, you are going to say even if it’s bright red, it is a duck. But if it is bright red and made of metal and runs on batteries, it is going to be modified with something like, “It’s a robo-duck.”
Estudia: Got it, I think. Where do we go from here?
Philo: Next time, we’ll discuss the central question of epistemology.
Estudia: Which is?
Philo: Ha... nice try. Next time. I’ll see you later.
posted by Rp | 8:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home