A serious “concept”

I am utterly serious when I say I do not believe concepts as things.

I am not trying to be clever, only to point out that language fools us into believing that concepts exist as things.

The self referential aspect of “concept” is what I am talking about.

We can never escape concept-as-thing because this is the only way we can deal with it. It is a kind of metaphor.

2 thoughts on “A serious “concept”

  1. Thank you for reading and commenting.

    Mathematical “truths” are, in my opinion, concepts. To be precise they are conceptualisation (more prescisely, the ‘act of conceptualising’). By turning conceptualisations into concepts (nouns) we turn them into things. This being is very good at doing it. So much so that this being doesn’t realise what they have done. Creating and holding onto conceptual things is our nature. This nature separates us from other animals.

    I agree there is a mathematical landscape, but only as concepts held in the mind. Discovered, yes. But they are discovered in things as properties of things. We, again l, are very good at separating the property from the thing, and then turn them into things when they are strictly not things.


  2. How do you categorize mathematical truths? Are they concepts, or is there a “Platonic heaven” of forms & numbers? Are they “things”, albeit not in the physical sense of ” things”?

    It certainly seems like there is a landscape of mathematical truths that are constantly being discovered rather than invented, with only the notation and methods of discovery being human inventions.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s