Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 17 Jun '14 19:34
    Q. If language is symbolic/represetnative by its nature, does it stand that the concept to which the word/language refers to be more concrete and/or real?
  2. 17 Jun '14 20:19
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Q. If language is symbolic/represetnative by its nature, does it stand that the concept to which the word/language refers to be more concrete and/or real?
    No, of course not. I am sure you could find self referential descriptions, but the killer would be the word 'vague'. The concept is clearly more concrete than the thing it refers to.
  3. 17 Jun '14 20:20
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No, of course not. I am sure you could find self referential descriptions, but the killer would be the word 'vague'. The concept is clearly more concrete than the thing it refers to.
    So you're saying the language is more concrete than the concept?
  4. 17 Jun '14 21:03
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    So you're saying the language is more concrete than the concept?
    Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about what the concept refers to rather than the conceptualization itself.
    Neither symbols nor concepts are physical objects, I don't think you can measure their 'reality'. So neither is more real than the other. Similarly I am not sure what you would mean by 'concrete' in this context. I think the word 'vague' is perfectly concrete. It may however not be a perfect representation of the concept it refers to.
    I would say that concepts on the other hand are almost by their very nature a bit grey around the edges and thus not entirely concrete.
  5. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    17 Jun '14 23:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about what the concept refers to rather than the conceptualization itself.
    Neither symbols nor concepts are physical objects, I don't think you can measure their 'reality'. So neither is more real than the other. Similarly I am not sure what you would mean by 'concrete' in this context. I think the word ' ...[text shortened]... hand are almost by their very nature a bit grey around the edges and thus not entirely concrete.
    Surely concepts are based on thought; and thought is a physical process,
    a physical process is real and therefore a concept is founded in reality.

    The problem is: is my concept of "xxx" the same as your concept
    of "xxx"? I think the answer to that is obviously NO. (The size of
    that NO being dependant on the concept.)
  6. 18 Jun '14 00:07
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Surely concepts are based on thought; and thought is a physical process,
    a physical process is real and therefore a concept is founded in reality.

    The problem is: is my concept of "xxx" the same as your concept
    of "xxx"? I think the answer to that is obviously NO. (The size of
    that NO being dependant on the concept.)
    Let's take math, as an example.
    We use numbers and equations to express simple 'truths' such as:
    2 + 2 = 4

    The numbers are symbolic and representative.
    The formula, our expression.

    Is the concept of the expressed formula real?
  7. 18 Jun '14 06:05
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Is the concept of the expressed formula real?
    The concept is real. It may, however be different than the formula, and different for different people.
    It is also important to note that the formula being true, is irrelevant. 2+2=5 is also a real concept. So is the concept of a unicorn.