Concept: Difference between revisions
adding a sentence about lexical concepts |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Notable Theories on The Structure of Concepts== |
==Notable Theories on The Structure of Concepts== |
||
===Classical Theory=== |
===Classical Theory=== |
||
The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of concepts,<ref name="Origin of Concepts" /> is the oldest theory about the structure of concepts(it can be traced back to Aristotle<ref name="Big Book" />), and was prominently held until the 1970s<ref name="Big Book" />. The classical theory of concepts says that concepts have a definitional structure.<ref name="Stanford Encycl" /> Adequate definitions of the kind required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must have two important qualities to provide a comprehensive definition.<ref name="Big Book" /> Features entailed by the definition of a concept must be both '''necessary''' and '''sufficient''' for membership in the class of things covered by a particular concept.<ref name="Big Book" /> A feature is considered necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is considered sufficient if something has all the parts required by the definition.<ref name="Big Book" /> For example, the classic example '''bachelor''' is said to be defined by '''unmarried''' and '''man'''.<ref name="Stanford Encycl" /> |
The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of concepts,<ref name="Origin of Concepts" /> is the oldest theory about the structure of concepts(it can be traced back to Aristotle<ref name="Big Book" />), and was prominently held until the 1970s<ref name="Big Book" />. The classical theory of concepts says that concepts have a definitional structure.<ref name="Stanford Encycl" /> Adequate definitions of the kind required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must have two important qualities to provide a comprehensive definition.<ref name="Big Book" /> Features entailed by the definition of a concept must be both '''necessary''' and '''sufficient''' for membership in the class of things covered by a particular concept.<ref name="Big Book" /> A feature is considered necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is considered sufficient if something has all the parts required by the definition.<ref name="Big Book" /> For example, the classic example '''bachelor''' is said to be defined by '''unmarried''' and '''man'''.<ref name="Stanford Encycl" /> An entity is a bachelor (by this definition) if and only if it is both unmarried and a man. To check whether something is a member of the class, you compare its qualities to the features in the definition.<ref name="Origin of Concepts" /> Another key part of this theory is that it obeys the ''law of the excluded middle'', which means that there are no partial members of a class, you are either in or out.<ref name="Big Book" /> |
||
The classical theory persisted for so long unquestioned because it seemed intuitively correct and has great explanatory power. It can explain how concepts would be acquired, how we use them to categorize and how we use the structure of a concept to determine its referent class.<ref name="Stanford Encycl" /> In fact, for many years it was one of the major activities in philosophy - concept analysis<ref name="Stanford Encycl" />. Concept analysis is the act of trying to articulate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the membership in the referent class of a concept. |
|||
==Issues in concept theory== |
==Issues in concept theory== |
Revision as of 05:54, 7 November 2012
A concept is a mental symbol, used to denote a class of things in the world.[1][2] Concepts are mental representations that allows us to draw appropriate inferences about the type of entities we encounter in our everyday lives.[2] Concepts do not encompass all mental representations, but are merely a subset of them.[1] Concepts are the glue that bind entities in the world, and are distinct from 'conceptions', which are the beliefs that we hold about these entities.[1] The use of concepts is necessary to cognitive processes such as categorization, memory, decision making, learning and inference.[3]
There is debate as to the relationship between concepts and natural language.[3] However, it is necessary at least to begin by understanding that the concept "dog" is philosophically distinct from the things in the world grouped by this concept - or the reference class or extension.[1] Concepts that can be equated to a single word are called "lexical concepts".[3]
Study of concepts and conceptual structure falls into the disciplines of philosophy, psychology and cognitive science.[2]
Notable Theories on The Structure of Concepts
Classical Theory
The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of concepts,[1] is the oldest theory about the structure of concepts(it can be traced back to Aristotle[2]), and was prominently held until the 1970s[2]. The classical theory of concepts says that concepts have a definitional structure.[3] Adequate definitions of the kind required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must have two important qualities to provide a comprehensive definition.[2] Features entailed by the definition of a concept must be both necessary and sufficient for membership in the class of things covered by a particular concept.[2] A feature is considered necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is considered sufficient if something has all the parts required by the definition.[2] For example, the classic example bachelor is said to be defined by unmarried and man.[3] An entity is a bachelor (by this definition) if and only if it is both unmarried and a man. To check whether something is a member of the class, you compare its qualities to the features in the definition.[1] Another key part of this theory is that it obeys the law of the excluded middle, which means that there are no partial members of a class, you are either in or out.[2]
The classical theory persisted for so long unquestioned because it seemed intuitively correct and has great explanatory power. It can explain how concepts would be acquired, how we use them to categorize and how we use the structure of a concept to determine its referent class.[3] In fact, for many years it was one of the major activities in philosophy - concept analysis[3]. Concept analysis is the act of trying to articulate the necessary and sufficient conditions for the membership in the referent class of a concept.
Issues in concept theory
A Priori Concepts
Kant declared that human minds possess pure or a priori concepts. Instead of being abstracted from individual perceptions, like empirical concepts, they originate in the mind itself. He called these concepts categories, in the sense of the word that means predicate, attribute, characteristic, or quality. But these pure categories are predicates of things in general, not of a particular thing. According to Kant, there are 12 categories that constitute the understanding of phenomenal objects. Each category is that one predicate which is common to multiple empirical concepts. In order to explain how an a priori concept can relate to individual phenomena, in a manner analogous to an a posteriori concept, Kant employed the technical concept of the schema. Immanuel Kant held that the account of the concept as an abstraction of experience is only partly correct. He called those concepts that result from abstraction "a posteriori concepts" (meaning concepts that arise out of experience). An empirical or an a posteriori concept is a general representation (Vorstellung) or non-specific thought of that which is common to several specific perceived objects (Logic, I, 1., §1, Note 1)
A concept is a common feature or characteristic. Kant investigated the way that empirical a posteriori concepts are created.
The logical acts of the understanding by which concepts are generated as to their form are:
- comparison, i.e., the likening of mental images to one another in relation to the unity of consciousness;
- reflection, i.e., the going back over different mental images, how they can be comprehended in one consciousness; and finally
- abstraction or the segregation of everything else by which the mental images differ ...
In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare, reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of the understanding are essential and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. For example, I see a fir, a willow, and a linden. In firstly comparing these objects, I notice that they are different from one another in respect of trunk, branches, leaves, and the like; further, however, I reflect only on what they have in common, the trunk, the branches, the leaves themselves, and abstract from their size, shape, and so forth; thus I gain a concept of a tree.
— Logic, §6
Embodied content
In cognitive linguistics, abstract concepts are transformations of concrete concepts derived from embodied experience. The mechanism of transformation is structural mapping, in which properties of two or more source domains are selectively mapped onto a blended space (Fauconnier & Turner, 1995; see conceptual blending). A common class of blends are metaphors. This theory contrasts with the rationalist view that concepts are perceptions (or recollections, in Plato's term) of an independently existing world of ideas, in that it denies the existence of any such realm. It also contrasts with the empiricist view that concepts are abstract generalizations of individual experiences, because the contingent and bodily experience is preserved in a concept, and not abstracted away. While the perspective is compatible with Jamesian pragmatism, the notion of the transformation of embodied concepts through structural mapping makes a distinct contribution to the problem of concept formation.[citation needed]
Ontology
Plato was the starkest proponent of the realist thesis of universal concepts. By his view, concepts (and ideas in general) are innate ideas that were instantiations of a transcendental world of pure forms that lay behind the veil of the physical world. In this way, universals were explained as transcendent objects. Needless to say this form of realism was tied deeply with Plato's ontological projects. This remark on Plato is not of merely historical interest. For example, the view that numbers are Platonic objects was revived by Kurt Gödel as a result of certain puzzles that he took to arise from the phenomenological accounts.[4]
Gottlob Frege, founder of the analytic tradition in philosophy, famously argued for the analysis of language in terms of sense and reference. For him, the sense of an expression in language describes a certain state of affairs in the world, namely, the way that some object is presented. Since many commentators view the notion of sense as identical to the notion of concept, and Frege regards senses as the linguistic representations of states of affairs in the world, it seems to follow that we may understand concepts as the manner in which we grasp the world. Accordingly, concepts (as senses) have an ontological status (Morgolis:7)
According to Carl Benjamin Boyer, in the introduction to his The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development, concepts in calculus do not refer to perceptions. As long as the concepts are useful and mutually compatible, they are accepted on their own. For example, the concepts of the derivative and the integral are not considered to refer to spatial or temporal perceptions of the external world of experience. Neither are they related in any way to mysterious limits in which quantities are on the verge of nascence or evanescence, that is, coming into or going out of existence. The abstract concepts are now considered to be totally autonomous, even though they originated from the process of abstracting or taking away qualities from perceptions until only the common, essential attributes remained.
Etymology
The term "concept" is traced back to 1554–60 (Latin conceptum - "something conceived"),[5] but what is today termed "the classical theory of concepts" is the theory of Aristotle on the definition of terms.[citation needed] The meaning of "concept" is explored in mainstream information science,[6][7] cognitive science, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. In computer and information science contexts, especially, the term 'concept' is often used in unclear or inconsistent ways.[8]
See also
- Abstraction
- Categorization
- Class (philosophy)
- Concept and object
- Concept learning
- Concept map
- Conceptual art
- Conceptual blending
- Conceptual clustering
- Conceptual framework
- Conceptual history
- Conceptual model
- Conveyed concept
- Definitionism
- Doctrine
- Formal concept analysis
- Fuzzy concept
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Idea
- Ideasthesia
- Notion (philosophy)
- Object (philosophy)
- Philosophy
- Recept
- Schema (Kant)
- Social construction
- Symbol grounding problem
References
- ^ a b c d e f Carey, Susan (2009). The Origin of Concepts. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536763-8.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Murphy, Gregory (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ISBN 0-262-13409-8.
- ^ a b c d e f g Eric Margolis. "Concepts". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University. Retrieved 6 November 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ 'Godel's Rationalism', Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ http://www.bartleby.com/61/49/C0544900.html%7CThe American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
- ^ Stock, W.G. (2010). Concepts and semantic relations in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 1951-1969.
- ^ Hjørland, B. (2009). Concept Theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519–1536
- ^ Smith, B. (2004). Beyond Concepts, or: Ontology as Reality Representation, Formal Ontology and Information Systems. Proceedings of the Third International Conference (FOIS 2004), Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004, 73–84.
Suggested Additional Readings
- Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1999). what some concepts might not be. In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, Concepts (pp. 225-261). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Carey, S. (1999). knowledge acquisition: enrichment or conceptual change? In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 459-489). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C., & Parkes, C. H. (1999). against definitions. In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 491-513). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Fodor, J., & LePore, E. (1996). the pet fish and the red Herring: why concept still can't be prototypes. cognition, 253-270.
- Hume, D. (1739). book one part one: of the understanding of ideas, their origin, composition, connexion, abstraction etc. In D. Hume, a treatise of human nature. England.
- Murphy, G. (2004). Chapter 2. In G. Murphy, a big book of concepts (pp. 11 - 41). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Murphy, G., & Medin, D. (1999). the role of theories in conceptual coherence. In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 425-459). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Prinz, J. J. (2002). Desiderata on a Theory of Concepts. In J. J. Prinz, Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and their Perceptual Basis (pp. 1-23). Massechusettes: MIT press.
- Putnam, H. (1999). is semantics possible? In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 177-189). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Quine, W. (1999). two dogmas of empiricism. In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 153-171). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- Rey, G. (1999). Concepts and Stereotypes. In E. Margolis, & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 279-301). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Rosch, E. (1977). Classification of real-world objects: Origins and representations in cognition. In P. Johnson-Laird, & P. Wason, Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science (pp. 212-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of Categorization. In E. Margolis, & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 189-206). Cambridge, Massechusetts: MIT Press.
- Wittgenstein, L. (1999). philosophical investigations: sections 65-78. In E. Margolis, & S. Lawrence, concepts: core readings (pp. 171-175). Massachusetts: MIT press.
- The History of Calculus and its Conceptual Development, Carl Benjamin Boyer, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-60509-4
- The Writings of William James, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-39188-4
- Logic, Immanuel Kant, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-25650-2
- A System of Logic, John Stuart Mill, University Press of the Pacific, ISBN 1-4102-0252-6
- Parerga and Paralipomena, Arthur Schopenhauer, Volume I, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-824508-4
- What is Philosophy?, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
- Kant's Metaphysic of Experience, H. J. Paton, London: Allen & Unwin, 1936
- Conceptual Integration Networks. Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, 1998. Cognitive Science. Volume 22, number 2 (April–June 1998), pages 133-187.
- The Portable Nietzsche, Penguin Books, 1982, ISBN 0-14-015062-5
- Stephen Laurence and Eric Margolis "Concepts and Cognitive Science". In Concepts: Core Readings, MIT Press pp. 3–81, 1999.
- Birger Hjørland. (2009). Concept Theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519–1536
- Georgij Yu. Somov (2010). Concepts and Senses in Visual Art: Through the example of analysis of some works by Bruegel the Elder. Semiotica 182 (1/4), 475–506.
- Daltrozzo J, Vion-Dury J, Schön D. (2010). Music and Concepts. Horizons in Neuroscience Research 4: 157-167. [1]
External links
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg/40px-Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)
select an article title from: Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
- E. Margolis and S. Lawrence (2006), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Concepts". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Blending and Conceptual Integration
- Conceptual Science and Mathematical Permutations
- Concept Mobiles Latest concepts
- v:Conceptualize: A Wikiversity Learning Project
- Concept simultaneously translated in several languages and meanings
- Product Research and Conceptualization