GeistFaust
09-08-2011, 12:27 AM
Now I only wish to ask the most basic questions concerning how our material minds are capable of applying certain concepts to objects. This is to say why and how is it possible that our concepts must necessarily conform themselves to the objects which they represent. Perhaps this is a question that is out of our grasp but it is something I desire to investigate nonetheless. The immediacy of a particular concept or object is based simply on the perception I have in relation to a given concept or object in particular. This predicate resides on the fact that all the matter I intuit predetermines the matter I cognize through my senses and intellectual analysis.
I would go so far as to divide this process with the order of necessity ranking from intuition to the intellectual analysis of the whole of reality. Reality itself can only take a given relation to us as the human person when it is limited by our intuition to the senses which grasp the original concepts of our reason. This is to say reality itself is only real in so far as it is relatable to us both through our senses and through intellectual analysis this is necessitated on the grounds of the intuition. An object although essential and fundamental to our analysis of reality and ourselves is nothing without the precept of a given thought in relation to it.
This is to say more generally that the object itself necessitates the process of thinking and conceiving certain things concerning the nature of the object perceived. Our intuition though mistakens us in causing certain delusions to reflect onto that process of thinking and conceiving of the relation things share in reality between each other. To illustrate this point let us say the fire is hot. This is something which is basically known to us through the senses which are only capable of feeling things in so far as they are relatable to our intellectual analysis of reality. That is to say in so far as they are dictated by that our sense are processed through a physical organism namely the human body.
The human body(more specifically the brain) is the source of our cognitions and conceptions of reality. Our concept of fire being hot is something which is naturally predetermined by the intuition but it is not verifiable to us until we have sensed the heat. It is our intellectual capacity which allows us to apply and directly relate the immeadiacy of the heat with the fire. This is to say that although the fire and the heat of the fire co-exist to certain degrees and in various quantities it is our intellectual capacity which allows us to define and distinguish such realities. Naturally though our senses play a part in influencing our intellectual capacity because they are connected inherently on common grounds.
Our senses "allow" us to produce the sensation of the heat of the fire thus giving our cognition and intellect something to analyze. Our cognition and intellectual grasping of the coinciding of the heat with the fire is preceded by our sensing it but yet unknown to us remains in constant relation with it. In order to realize the concept which represents a thing there must be a difference or succession in time itself which allows the senses to determine unconsciously the immediate opposition between one moment to the next. There is a constant opposition in time which is determined moment by moment and it only due to this that we can properly conceive of the properties of an object such as fire.
It would not be possible to develop such a cognition of the fire being hot if there was not already a predisposed opposition to that property contained within the fire. This is to say the non-existence of a property is just as necessary to infer the property of something although this does not appear to us as we perceive the world around us. The common reality we all share is limited and defined by the intuition of space and time which likewise are applied and determined by the senses. The intellectual capacity of our minds draw their source and borrow their mode of consciousness from the intuitive boundaries which are drawn all around us.
This is to say we are limited in so far as to our thinking and conception of things based on what is presented to us in experience. This is actually why it the intellect is not worthy of understanding everything that is presented to it because the very existence of the intellect is predicated by the existence of an object. That object is the human person which fundamentally speaking has been pre-determined to think and conceive of reality which in and of itself is inconceivable. To know the properties of a matter is something that is determined by our senses as was said before because the properties of a substance are just as fundmental to the substance as the substance is to it.
The analogy can be made that the heat is to thinking as the fire is to the senses. The fire produces the heat but it does not so only spontaenously so that without one the other would lose its fundamental quality. This differentation is something that occurs quite beyond the capacity of our conceptions and thoughts to adequately understand but it is something which we accept as a matter-of-fact determined by the primacy of our senses over all other things. Now concerning the mistake or fallacies which arise from our senses there are many which the intellectual capacity is suited out to correct and make straight.
It can be said that the essential and fundamental nature of humanity has formed and shaped itself in such a way in which it gifted us all to different degrees and to capacity to correct and make straight the mistakes and delusions that the instinct predicates to reality. It quite baffles me how my instinct can be mistaken despite the fact it is the source of my cognition which is employed to arrange and correct the internal nature of reality which presents itself through particular objects which contain the conceptions which our senses self reflect on and which our mode of cognition defines and distinguished properly.
Every specific thing has a fundamental and broader nature likewise every fundamental and broader nature only has its existence in so far as it exists through its specifity. This specifity will be different depending on the fundamental nature of a thing which is known to differ on a much broader scale between species.
That is to say the fundamental nature of life manifests it strictly biologically speaking and its differences like in biology but that all life regardless of how it differs one from the other is gathered under a single general rule namely the intuition which assigns to each fundamentally different reality its own specific traits.
Even in a fundamentally similar species there exists a great variety of difference and diversity and even an inherent structure and order which predetermines the nature of those properties, capacities, and characteristics which will represent the fundamental diversity contained by nature.
Likewise the same could be said of the concepts we have of reality they differ greatly based on our interpretation and relation to the object taken in a more broadly defined way. My issue simply was to deal with how do we arrive at the cognition of certain concepts of things and if these concepts are only things which are re-validated by our cognition of them which has its source in our senses.
All our basic concepts seem to take root in our senses only in so far as they coincide directly with biological and chemical causes. The very concept of the sky being blue is taken as a matter of fact but this matter of fact is immediately to our senses the direct result of biological and chemical reactions. The senses can understand this basic nature but it can not comprehend or distinguish the vast complex nature as to why an object coincides with a particular concept or has it contained with its nature.
This is something at least empircally speaking which is left to our cognition and intellect to cognize and distinguish. Yet these cognitions and distinguishments are limited by the way in which our senses "present" objects to us and also given how an object "presents itself to us something which is objectively determined.
I would go so far as to divide this process with the order of necessity ranking from intuition to the intellectual analysis of the whole of reality. Reality itself can only take a given relation to us as the human person when it is limited by our intuition to the senses which grasp the original concepts of our reason. This is to say reality itself is only real in so far as it is relatable to us both through our senses and through intellectual analysis this is necessitated on the grounds of the intuition. An object although essential and fundamental to our analysis of reality and ourselves is nothing without the precept of a given thought in relation to it.
This is to say more generally that the object itself necessitates the process of thinking and conceiving certain things concerning the nature of the object perceived. Our intuition though mistakens us in causing certain delusions to reflect onto that process of thinking and conceiving of the relation things share in reality between each other. To illustrate this point let us say the fire is hot. This is something which is basically known to us through the senses which are only capable of feeling things in so far as they are relatable to our intellectual analysis of reality. That is to say in so far as they are dictated by that our sense are processed through a physical organism namely the human body.
The human body(more specifically the brain) is the source of our cognitions and conceptions of reality. Our concept of fire being hot is something which is naturally predetermined by the intuition but it is not verifiable to us until we have sensed the heat. It is our intellectual capacity which allows us to apply and directly relate the immeadiacy of the heat with the fire. This is to say that although the fire and the heat of the fire co-exist to certain degrees and in various quantities it is our intellectual capacity which allows us to define and distinguish such realities. Naturally though our senses play a part in influencing our intellectual capacity because they are connected inherently on common grounds.
Our senses "allow" us to produce the sensation of the heat of the fire thus giving our cognition and intellect something to analyze. Our cognition and intellectual grasping of the coinciding of the heat with the fire is preceded by our sensing it but yet unknown to us remains in constant relation with it. In order to realize the concept which represents a thing there must be a difference or succession in time itself which allows the senses to determine unconsciously the immediate opposition between one moment to the next. There is a constant opposition in time which is determined moment by moment and it only due to this that we can properly conceive of the properties of an object such as fire.
It would not be possible to develop such a cognition of the fire being hot if there was not already a predisposed opposition to that property contained within the fire. This is to say the non-existence of a property is just as necessary to infer the property of something although this does not appear to us as we perceive the world around us. The common reality we all share is limited and defined by the intuition of space and time which likewise are applied and determined by the senses. The intellectual capacity of our minds draw their source and borrow their mode of consciousness from the intuitive boundaries which are drawn all around us.
This is to say we are limited in so far as to our thinking and conception of things based on what is presented to us in experience. This is actually why it the intellect is not worthy of understanding everything that is presented to it because the very existence of the intellect is predicated by the existence of an object. That object is the human person which fundamentally speaking has been pre-determined to think and conceive of reality which in and of itself is inconceivable. To know the properties of a matter is something that is determined by our senses as was said before because the properties of a substance are just as fundmental to the substance as the substance is to it.
The analogy can be made that the heat is to thinking as the fire is to the senses. The fire produces the heat but it does not so only spontaenously so that without one the other would lose its fundamental quality. This differentation is something that occurs quite beyond the capacity of our conceptions and thoughts to adequately understand but it is something which we accept as a matter-of-fact determined by the primacy of our senses over all other things. Now concerning the mistake or fallacies which arise from our senses there are many which the intellectual capacity is suited out to correct and make straight.
It can be said that the essential and fundamental nature of humanity has formed and shaped itself in such a way in which it gifted us all to different degrees and to capacity to correct and make straight the mistakes and delusions that the instinct predicates to reality. It quite baffles me how my instinct can be mistaken despite the fact it is the source of my cognition which is employed to arrange and correct the internal nature of reality which presents itself through particular objects which contain the conceptions which our senses self reflect on and which our mode of cognition defines and distinguished properly.
Every specific thing has a fundamental and broader nature likewise every fundamental and broader nature only has its existence in so far as it exists through its specifity. This specifity will be different depending on the fundamental nature of a thing which is known to differ on a much broader scale between species.
That is to say the fundamental nature of life manifests it strictly biologically speaking and its differences like in biology but that all life regardless of how it differs one from the other is gathered under a single general rule namely the intuition which assigns to each fundamentally different reality its own specific traits.
Even in a fundamentally similar species there exists a great variety of difference and diversity and even an inherent structure and order which predetermines the nature of those properties, capacities, and characteristics which will represent the fundamental diversity contained by nature.
Likewise the same could be said of the concepts we have of reality they differ greatly based on our interpretation and relation to the object taken in a more broadly defined way. My issue simply was to deal with how do we arrive at the cognition of certain concepts of things and if these concepts are only things which are re-validated by our cognition of them which has its source in our senses.
All our basic concepts seem to take root in our senses only in so far as they coincide directly with biological and chemical causes. The very concept of the sky being blue is taken as a matter of fact but this matter of fact is immediately to our senses the direct result of biological and chemical reactions. The senses can understand this basic nature but it can not comprehend or distinguish the vast complex nature as to why an object coincides with a particular concept or has it contained with its nature.
This is something at least empircally speaking which is left to our cognition and intellect to cognize and distinguish. Yet these cognitions and distinguishments are limited by the way in which our senses "present" objects to us and also given how an object "presents itself to us something which is objectively determined.