Thoughts on this?

- All similarities between things are merely concepts
- All concepts about things are merely constructs from our mind, despite whether or not they correlate with the reality of particulars
- All things are particulars

Reminds me of Hume

[hmkpoker]

yes, yes and yes.

Implications?

[imported_luckyme]

Pretending I know what your terms mean (added lettering to your statements for reference)-

[ QUOTE ]
-(A) All similarities between things are merely concepts
- (B) All concepts about things are merely constructs from our mind, despite whether or not they correlate with the reality of particulars
- (C) All things are particulars

[/ QUOTE ]

If B is true, then A seems an overstatement. At the least, the concept of similarity is not about things but about the the concepts we have of them. So, those times when the concepts do correlate to the reality of particulars the similarity will be an actuality, regardless of whether the concepts reflect the particulars in any meaningful way.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Implications?

[/ QUOTE ]
those entities holding concepts that bear no worthwhile relationship to the actual nature of particular things will likely have been trampled by woolly mammoths that were conceptualized as rocks, or eaten by marsupial bears when they were construed as rabbits.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of Hume

[/ QUOTE ]

And perhaps Peter Aberlard's view sometimes referred to moderate nominalism This compromise position between nominalism and realismis is called Conceptualism. This is the view that rejects realism, but holds that universals are more than merely name words. The words stand for universal concepts, objective only in the sense that they are independent of subjective naming.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
- All similarities between things are merely concepts
- All concepts about things are merely constructs from our mind, despite whether or not they correlate with the reality of particulars
- All things are particulars

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No - a perfect (or indeed imperfect) replica of something is similar, concepts nonwithstanding
2. Yes
3. No if you mean 'a specific instance of a thing' by the term 'particular'

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
- All similarities between things are merely concepts
- All concepts about things are merely constructs from our mind, despite whether or not they correlate with the reality of particulars
- All things are particulars

[/ QUOTE ]
- not sure what this means, similarities could be objective but concepts are subjective.
- true
- not sure what this means, are concepts things?

reminds me of Wittgenstien except I thought I understood one.

chez

(By particular I mean individual in the sense that it is unique.)

Also, if something is a replica of something else, it must be wholly similar to that something else. To say X = Y with the condition that X need to be +Q is not the condition of X = Y as you claim - rather it is the condition of X + Q = Y.

The first point stresses that since each individual thing is unique, any similarities found between two things must come from something outside those two things - presumably our mind. An example of this could be where an ancient astronomer discovers two very distant stars, both of which appear exactly the same to him. Both these stars must have different histories and compisitions, but still, they appear to be merely two dots of light to him and exactly the same to the point where they are different by number alone.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The first point stresses that since each individual thing is unique,

[/ QUOTE ] Before I think this through, some clarification? Is every electron unique? every H20 molecule? every complex carbon molecule? every .. ?
If it were a valid claim, how would we know that things are unique in themselves? If we can't trust any concepts we form to recognize actual similarity then how can we trust it to recognize dissimilarity. It would seem just as valid to start with .. "Since each individual thing is identical, any differences must ....." ?? just asking.
luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
All similarities between things are merely concepts
- All concepts about things are merely constructs from our mind, despite whether or not they correlate with the reality of particulars
- All things are particulars

[/ QUOTE ]

Concepts of things are contained within the thing(event?) itself. The parabolic motion of a thrown ball contains the concept of parabola for which man is an active explorer through thinking. The parabolic concept is not squeezed out from our brain like lemon juice.

Likewise there is a concept associated with "lion" and "fish" which can be likened to "ideas" which are contained within the various species in the sense that you cannot consider the lion species without seeing the "idea" which is the backbone of our sense bound reality. They are one and the same but a clouded consciousness only sees our sense bound reality. Through thinking man explores these regions which are seen to be a "living" reality of thought.

Man lives through the grace of thinking and in so doing explores his home.

carlo

[J. Stew]

The concept of tree could never fully encapsulate the suchness of the tree, similarly, the way a person speaks and acts can never fully describe the suchness of the person, but can only point towards something that is the nothing from which the person speaks and acts from.

[ QUOTE ]
- All similarities between things are merely concepts

[/ QUOTE ]

All differences between things are merely concepts as well.