abstractions

[Xray]

The category itself is not an entity, but also an abstraction, a mental invention composed of arbitrarily selected similalities.

I have little doubt this is how Xray herself operates. There is plenty of evidence on OL of her using categories based on arbitrarily selected "similalities."

Every category is based on arbitrarily selected similarities. This is the very principle of categorizing.

But a category is never an entity. Therefore a statement like e.g. "life proper to man" refers to category only, not to individual identity.

Categorizing on similarities necessarily leaves actual entity identity (difference) behind.

The more extensive the category, the less cognitive content retained: individual-man-animal-organism, etc.

I wrote about how a child learns to mentally connect the audiovisual symbol 'dog' to an finite object.

The general term 'dog' refers to the category.

Now one might ask: While it is is true that categories are arbitrary groupings by similarity, they still seem to be "defined" in a lexicon.

So while categories are arbitrary and unlimited, still the principle of differentiating them from other categories via definition seems to be at work, which one can can see in the lexicon entry where the category is defined: e. g. "table" : " An article of furniture supported by one or more vertical legs and having a flat horizontal surface".

Entity identity is established by limitiation and difference, but as for categories, can they be 'defined' too?

In entity identity, a physical and finite object (independent of mind) is defined by its set of differentiating characteristics. It is a description of the entity. On the other hand, a category, (mind dependent) there is no object to define. So in terms of category what's to define is not a specific object, but a word chosen as a symbolic representation of a subjectively created and infinite category.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray