Aristotle devoted much thought and writing to the notion of categories, what they are and how we use them. Other philosophers have also looked at categories. I have a cursory knowledge of Frege, Kant and one or two others. I wonder if other people can enlighten me as to other philosophical understandings and theories about categories?
Thanks for your comment Pierre, do you have any answers to the question?
I take it that categories are necessary for (rational) thinking, but I am more interested in categorizing -- and its relationships to comparing and abstracting -- than in categories proper. Categories can be seen from several viewpoints, logical, ontological, methodological, epistemological, etc., and it seems to me that this problem should not be treated as a general problem. Yet this view may only reflect my own limitations, and I would be happy to hear more about this interesting question.
Thank you for your response Pierre. We agree in thinking that categories are needed to allow rational thinking (although I'd be very interested to hear a good argument why they are not).I am not sure if this is what you are saying but it seems that are saying that you see the multiple different perspectives from which categories can be seen and investigated to be a problem. Am I reading what you wrote correctly? If I am reading this correctly, why do you see this as problematic? Is it not possible that the different approaches can either exist independently of each other (have a neutral relationship) or can provide insight to each other (a mutually beneficial relationship)? You appear to be interested in Piaget. Is this a main area of your interest in categories: i.e., Piaget's categories of cognitive development, etc...? Can you explain what you mean by this should not be treated as a general problem? Thank you for your interesting input.
Paul, I believe you will find plenty of good arguments about why categories are not needed for thinking in phenomenological approaches. Yet, I am not aware of any good argument about why categories are not needed for rational thinking... I take it that there is none. I would be curious to know what you think about this.
You are quite right that different approaches can exist, or can be mutually seminal. Again, I would be interested to hear about an attempt to theorize about categories in general. Yet, at the outset, I am a bit skeptical coz the term "category" has different meanings, and I doubt you will be able to do more than a list of concepts of categories, or a programmatic kind of article, attempts I would not call a "theory". This is what I personally suspect, but I would be glad to be wrong on this point.
I remember from Mario Bunge that he develops the idea that the making of science starts with categories, but I don't remember where he says this, probably in his Treatise. He also insists on "systematization", which includes categorization. As to Piaget, he is interested in the way children "construct" (and revise) categories, or rather mental frameworks, via the process of assimilation and accommodation.
Paul,
Lets take the example of the word ''tree''. I believe that we have the inherited visual competence to perceive trees. For sure, we have to learn to distinguish the different kind of tree, we learned a lot of specific features of trees but we never had to learn to visually perceive a tree. When you are a toddler , one of your parent pointed at a tree and said to you ''tree'' and from that day you know what you always knew is called ''a tree''. So a large amont of categories are already built-in in our nervous system.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy