Probably I didn’t fully understand your position, but here are my thoughts and emotions about this topic:
Not reifying concepts may be boring: we miss the opportunity to think about new and interesting types of properties.
The dichotomy “either concepts have fixed meanings or they don’t exist” is false for me. At least for the most part.
You can argue that “vague concepts” objectively exist, that they just describe natural clusters of things.
I don’t think “only particular thoughts exist” is a justified level of reductionism. People are able to learn language.
There’re some “contradictions” in your reply. You say that concepts don’t exist, but then you’re talking about positions in semantic spaces, something “drifting” and etc. All those things you could call “concepts”. Why do you decide to not do this?
Some concepts I absolutely 100% want to fully “exist”. Those concepts are personalities of other people.
Probably I didn’t fully understand your position, but here are my thoughts and emotions about this topic:
Not reifying concepts may be boring: we miss the opportunity to think about new and interesting types of properties.
The dichotomy “either concepts have fixed meanings or they don’t exist” is false for me. At least for the most part.
You can argue that “vague concepts” objectively exist, that they just describe natural clusters of things.
I don’t think “only particular thoughts exist” is a justified level of reductionism. People are able to learn language.
There’re some “contradictions” in your reply. You say that concepts don’t exist, but then you’re talking about positions in semantic spaces, something “drifting” and etc. All those things you could call “concepts”. Why do you decide to not do this?
Some concepts I absolutely 100% want to fully “exist”. Those concepts are personalities of other people.