Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Look at this. There is a certain concept that is commonly called “cognition” — this is the process of obtaining new knowledge about the objective world. The idea of conceptualism is that knowledge comes to you along with experience, but not because of experience.
Simple example: you are a seamstress, and at this particular moment you are sewing a soft toy. Some might say that you learn how to sew a stuffed animal because you get the experience of sewing this stuffed animal in the process. Roughly speaking, you sew a toy, you gain experience, and as you gain experience, you learn how to sew a toy. A conceptualist will say that as a result of sewing a toy — you get experience sewing toys + you get knowledge about how to sew a toy, but knowledge does not depend on experience.
Their involvement in the dispute over universals. A universal is the broadest, largest generalizing class of objects(for example, “human”, “animal”, or “machine”). The subject of dispute was whether these general concepts exist in the real world(meaning, on the same rights as you exist, for example, or the screen you are currently looking at), or whether these are all invented words for convenience that exist only in our head. The position of conceptualism in this dispute is such that these things do not exist in the real world, but nevertheless, in the mind they are and they are called “concepts”, and they are stupidly needed in order to make life more convenient.
UPD: If we explain other positions on the dispute about universals, then we can, in principle, say that conceptualism is a moderate nominalism, since conceptualism still recognizes the usefulness of concepts. In contrast, then, radical(or extreme) nominalism will be used, which differs from conceptualism in that it does not recognize the usefulness of concepts and considers them nonsense. There were also some so-called “realists” in this debate who believed that universals exist in the real world, but they are so cool that no one sees them. And the things we see are just projections of these universals.