structure for 'Thought'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

18. Thought / D. Concepts / 4. Structure of Concepts / i. Conceptual priority

[how concepts depend upon one another]

4 ideas
It is unclear whether acute angles are prior to right angles, or fingers to men [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Suppose parts are prior to the whole - then, since the acute angle is a part of the right angle, and a finger is part of an animal, this would mean the acute angle and the finger were prior, but received opinion says otherwise.
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1034b24)
Maybe a concept is 'prior' to another if it can be defined without the second concept [Dummett]
     Full Idea: One powerful argument for a thesis that one notion is conceptually prior to another is the possibility of defining the first without reference to the second.
     From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.12)
     A reaction: You'd better check whether you can't also define the second without reference to the first before you rank their priority. And maybe 'conceptual priority' is conceptually prior to 'definition' (i.e. definition needs a knowledge of priority). Help!
An argument for conceptual priority is greater simplicity in explanation [Dummett]
     Full Idea: An argument for conceptual priority is greater simplicity in explanation.
     From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.12)
     A reaction: One might still have to decide priority between two equally simple (or complex) concepts. I begin to wonder whether 'priority' has any other than an instrumental meaning (according to which direction you wish to travel - is London before Edinburgh?).
Conceptual priority is barely intelligible [Oliver]
     Full Idea: I find the notion of conceptual priority barely intelligible.
     From: Alex Oliver (The Metaphysics of Properties [1996], §19 n48)
     A reaction: I don't think I agree, though there is a lot of vagueness and intuition involved, and not a lot of hard argument. Can you derive A from B, but not B from A? Is A inconceivable without B, but B conceivable without A?