Inmetaphysics,conceptualism is a theory that explains universality ofparticulars as conceptualized frameworks situated within the thinking mind.[2] Intermediate betweennominalism andrealism, the conceptualist view approaches the metaphysical concept ofuniversals from a perspective that denies their presence in particulars outside the mind's perception of them.[3] Conceptualism isanti-realist aboutabstract objects, just likeimmanent realism is (their difference being that immanent realism accepts there are mind-independent facts about whether universals are instantiated).[4]
The evolution of latescholastic terminology has led to the emergence of conceptualism, which stemmed from doctrines that were previously considered to be nominalistic. The terminological distinction was made in order to stress the difference between the claim that universal mental acts correspond with universal intentional objects and the perspective that dismissed the existence of universals outside the mind. The former perspective of rejection of objectiveuniversality was distinctly defined as conceptualism.
Peter Abélard was a medieval thinker whose work is currently classified as having the most potential in representing the roots of conceptualism. Abélard’s view denied the existence of determinate universals within things.[5]William of Ockham was another famous late medieval thinker who had a strictly conceptualist solution to the metaphysical problem of universals. He argued that abstract concepts have nofundamentum outside the mind.[6]
In the 17th century conceptualism gained favour for some decades especially among theJesuits:Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza,Rodrigo de Arriaga andFrancisco Oviedo are the main figures.[7] Although the order soon returned to the morerealist philosophy ofFrancisco Suárez, the ideas of these Jesuits had a great impact on theearly modern philosophy.
Conceptualism was either explicitly or implicitly embraced by most of theearly modern thinkers, includingRené Descartes,John Locke,Baruch Spinoza,Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,George Berkeley, andDavid Hume – often in a quite simplified form if compared with the elaborate scholastic theories.[8][9]
Sometimes the term is applied even to the radically different philosophy ofImmanuel Kant, who holds that universals have no connection with things as they are in themselves because they (universals) are exclusively produced by oura priori mental structures and functions, even though thecategories have an objective validity for objects of experience (that is, phenomena).[10][11]
Inlate modern philosophy, conceptualist views were held byG. W. F. Hegel.[12]
Incontemporary times,Edmund Husserl'sphilosophy of mathematics has been construed as a form of conceptualism.[13]
Conceptualist realism (a view put forward byDavid Wiggins in 1980) states that our conceptual framework maps reality.[14]
Though separate from the historical debate regarding the status of universals, there has been significant debate regarding the conceptual character of experience since the release ofMind and World byJohn McDowell in 1994.[15] McDowell's touchstone is the famous refutation thatWilfrid Sellars provided for what he called the "Myth of the Given"—the notion that all empirical knowledge is based on certain assumed or 'given' items, such as sense data.[16] Thus, in rejecting the Myth of the Given, McDowell argues forperceptual conceptualism, according to which perceptual content is conceptual "from the ground up", that is, all perceptual experience is a form of conceptual experience. McDowell'sphilosophy of justification is considered a form offoundationalism: it is a form of foundationalism because it allows that certain judgements are warranted by experience and it is a coherent form of this view because it maintains that experience can warrant certain judgements because experience is irreducibly conceptual.[17][18]
A clear motivation of contemporary conceptualism is that the kind of perception that rational creatures like humans enjoy is unique in the fact that it has conceptual character. McDowell explains his position:
I have urged that our perceptual relation to the world is conceptual all the way out to the world’s impacts on our receptive capacities. The idea of the conceptual that I mean to be invoking is to be understood in close connection with the idea of rationality, in the sense that is in play in the traditional separation of mature human beings, as rational animals, from the rest of the animal kingdom. Conceptual capacities are capacities that belong to their subject’s rationality. So another way of putting my claim is to say that our perceptual experience is permeated with rationality. I have also suggested, in passing, that something parallel should be said about our agency.[19]
McDowell's conceptualism, though rather distinct (philosophically and historically) from conceptualism's genesis, shares the view that universals are not "given" in perception from outside the sphere of reason. Particular objects are perceived, as it were, already infused with conceptuality stemming from the spontaneity of the rational subject herself.
The retroactive application of the term "perceptual conceptualism" to Kant'sphilosophy of perception is debatable.[20] Robert Hanna has argued for a rival interpretation of Kant's work termedperceptual non-conceptualism.[21]
How Conceptualism Provides Answers
The view of conceptualism approaches philosophical questions by looking at the role of mental constructs and how they shape our understanding of the world. For example, in the debate over the existence of universals, conceptualism proposes that ideas (or concepts) like "justice" or "beauty" do not exist independently but rather are mental categories that have been developed through experiences and reasoning.[22] This approach allows for a more flexible understanding of philosophical ideas and also accommodates variations in individuals' thoughts. By focusing on the role of mental constructs, the view of conceptualism allows for a procedure that analyzes and interprets different philosophical problems.
Universals
The view of conceptualism assumes that universals, such as "justice" or "beauty,” are mental constructs of the human mind. They do not exist in the external world.[23] Even though individual objects share common features, the universals that are assigned to them are mental abstractions that allow the categorization and understanding of these similarities between them. For example, the concept of a tree appears from an individual's mental grouping of various trees based on experienced and perceived similarities. There is no external universal for a tree in this view.
Conceptualism and Personal Identity: The Ship of Theseus
The Ship of Theseus paradox asks questions about identity over a period of time. It asks the question, if all parts of an object are replaced, does the object remain the same? The way conceptualism approaches this situation is by claiming that the identity is not an innate property, but rather a conceptual structure that is applied.[24] Therefore, the conclusion of whether the ship remains the same depends on the conceptual criteria that are used to define identity. This idea also extends to personal identity—it suggests that our sense of self is a construct based on the continuity of our experiences and memory, rather than a fixed nature.[25]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
