[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

Dmb,

AGAIN:  Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?  


Marsha





On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:24 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said:
> I asked you the other day to post what you thought was my understanding of 'reification.'   Of course you didn't.  So I'll ask you again,  please explain my understanding of 'reification.''  Explain my understanding in its entirety.
> 
> dmb says:
> I just dished up your thoughts on reification and explained the objections. You "understanding in its entirety" is incoherent. It is a series of contradictions, of mutually exclusive claims.
> You can't say that reification is "interdependent with the conceptualization process" or simply "conceptualization reifies" AND also say that concepts are necessary to act in the world. You can't say reification is inescapable AND also say it is a tendency that may occur. Those are contradictory claims. Reification is a conceptual error, one we want to correct because of the vital importance and value of concepts or concepts themselves are inescapably doomed to reify experience and we ought to kill the intellect because its a prison. These are wildly opposed claims and you want to say them both at the same time. That's what I mean by calling saying your view is incoherent. For the millionth time.