“Concepts are often not in themselves true or false but used badly or well depending on context.”
This is false. The validity of a concept is determined by reality, not by how a consciousness uses it.
It is also false that “history” determines the validity of a concept. It does not.
y - you started a thread “Redcap Radcap” I believe you were aiming your comments at someone else, correct? If not, I have no idea what you are referencing.
Well, of course. Without a consciousness, you couldn’t determine a legitimate use of a concept, could you? Reality is often taken to be the last thing we think is true, as the history of science has often demonstrated. Instead of reality, we simply are taken by our opinion of it.
So, as I said: as the historical course of science demonstrates, “reality” and its perception is an ongoing affair.
Heisenberg proved that electrons and other sub-atomic particles have no distinct boundaries and are ontologically uncertain (as opposed to epistemologically uncertain). Having no absolutely distinct attributes, there is no necessary effect to be predicted as there is no certain cause to serve as antecedent.
So, the original concept of the uncuttability of the matter at some point got modified several thousand years after its original conception.
In other words, “reality” took a while to catch up with the concept and “reality” struck, the concept of uncuttability got modified.
So, the concept underwent revision. That means that the opposite idea had to be admitted and that the understanding of the phenomenon of the electron and of matter itself changed.
The same could be said of light. It is seen antinomiously as both particle and wave. This means that warring concepts have been reconciled.
Concepts historically turn out often to be as I stated: tools which need to be used properly. Usually this means that the validity of an opposite notion must be admitted and integrated at some point.
Roy
So you are a thru and thru subjectivist.
==
"Without a consciousness, you couldn’t determine a legitimate use of a concept, could you? "
This is an irrelevant statement because ONLY consciousness can create concepts. In other words, WHEN one speaks of concepts one NECESSARILY speaks of a consciousness creating and validating that concept. As such, the assertion does nothing to address my statements.
“Reality is often taken to be the last thing we think is true, as the history of science has often demonstrated.”
All you are saying is that man is NOT infallable, and as such, in any given instance he can be wrong. Problem is, the premise is NOT an argument. So it cannot be used to defend religion, nor can it be used to defend “history” as the validation of concepts. In other words, it does nothing to address my statements.
You then try to present as ‘proven’ fact, theories which ACCEPT contradictions as valid instead of rejecting them because of those contradictions. (You will find that such theories are rejected here for that very reason - ie for the reason that they violate the law of identity.) Using them as examples, you say:
“Usually this means that the validity of an opposite notion must be admitted and integrated at some point.”
Put simply if a concept is false - ie it does not describe reality accurately - then it is DISMISSED. One may take the concepts which constituted that concept and use them to create a new concept. But one may not take the non-real concept and accept it AS real.
Thus one PROPERLY dismisses all false concepts. One references REALITY as the source of validation for concepts. And one does NOT reference history as the source of validation for concepts.
In other words, NONE of your sentences here have actually addressed these statements, let alone refuted them.
==
Now, as an admin, I have one question and one question only for you. Before you post about ANYTHING else, including the above, I want a post devoted solely to the answer “Why are you posting on this site.”
Please do not post any other posts until you get a response to that answer.
I’ve heard a woman on a documentary saying something very interesting.
“The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who created God in their own image”
Implying that men (religions) created God in their own image to control others.
And how much damage religion has caused.
I think Religions are necessary to control certain people behaviors, through the fear of God.
Otherwise it would be anarchy.
But also Religions separate people, if you belong to one you are in conflict with all the others.
How many wars because of disagreement of religion beliefs?
It’s amazing how advance we are in technology, and how far behind we are on religion beliefs. How is that possible?
Religions should be allowing progress, just like technology does. If it weren’t like that we would probably still be riding horses.
So many things that were design for old times do not apply for these times.
Why does religions have to be so closed to new ideas?