Return to Answer

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, which has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Closer to the sense you indicate.

Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be referred to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and dirt, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, which has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Closer to the sense you indicate.

Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason (from which the definition is derived) is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be referred to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and stones, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, but that has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be referred to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and dirt, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, which has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Closer to the sense you indicate.

Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be referred to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and dirt, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, but that has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be refereed to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and dirt, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.

All concepts are general, the concept of a tree, for example, rather than a particular tree, but the common notion you must know, but that has slipped your mind, may be abstract concepts. What is abstract is not concrete or sensible.

There quite possibly may be another, better, term. Speculative, formal, and other terms might be wanted. Ideal perhaps.

Addendum explanatory:

If I am not mistaken Aristotle defines Happiness as excellent activity of the soul. Eudaimonia belongs to the realm of psuke, and its specific difference, i.e., of all things attributable to the soul or to life, which is the same for Aristotle, is arete or the most-sound power.

Socrates speaks of things that "don't show up in a mirror". Of course, one can define anything, and thereby bring it into view in a way that judgment can ask if it is there or not, but reason is, these days, rejected as a faculty that can not properly demonstrate. It is, in this sense, dismissed from the realm of the proper sciences.

What is abstract is non-sensible. One can be referred to the Parmenides where three determinations are made concerning what are often called "properties", concerning the question about what concepts require ideas or forms of there own, and which do not. With the famous line about mud, hair and dirt, sensible things, being of the lowest grouping. And then general material things in the second group, like fire and water.