HOW COMPLEX IDEAS ARE MADE FROM THE SIMPLE IDEAS THAT WE RECEIVE THROUGH OUR SENSE-IMPRESSIONS

All the complex ideas, notions, concepts and theories that our minds are able to create or receive from nature come firstly as simple ideas, or simple impressions and these come originally from our sense-impressions and these sense-impressions that we receive from our senses which then become a form of sense-data due to the faculty of perception and then become a form of understanding in our minds as a type of conception or realization of ideas is either of things we have sensed directly through our senses or they are things we have read or pictures we have seen or things we have heard people talking about etc. Complex ideas can be created in the mind without directly experiencing with our senses some of the simple ideas that these complex ideas consist of and there are various reasons for this which I will enumerate in due course. It must also be pointed out that we do not experience a lot of these complex ideas directly with our senses either even though some of these complex ideas exist in an abstract sense within nature itself as part of reality. Complex ideas are created in our minds from the many simple ideas that have been put together to create the complex ideas of varying complexity that we have in our minds. It must be mentioned that even though all our simple ideas come from our sense-impressions that some of these simple ideas that our complex ideas consist of have been received by our minds in many and varied ways, for instance, simple ideas can be received through reading, by listening to music, by looking at pictures, paintings and photographs, from things people have said, from television, films,and cinema, from objects in museums and also directly through our senses etc. Another way our minds create complex ideas out of simple ideas is by the use of logic, reason, intuition, instinct, memory and all the other aspects of the a priori concept which I have mentioned already in my essay called " logical intuition and instincts". The complex ideas that are created in our minds are either real or they are imaginary, they either apply to reality or they are fictions made-up in our minds and have no real existence except in our minds. The faculty of our mind to receive and interpret sense-data from our sense-impressions is called perception and is a faculty that is mostly a part of our senses, the faculty of understanding on the other hand is a faculty that is a part of thinking and reasoning and exists mostly in this way. Simple ideas must exist in the form of sense-data for the faculty of understanding to process it properly, because without the faculty of perception then the information from our sense-impressions would not exist as sense-data or as simple ideas for our understanding to comprehend. There is an aspect of our minds which we can call the faculty of conception which is the part of the mind that fully realizes the formation of a simple idea from the sense-data that the faculty of perception has presented to it. The faculty of conception can be said to be a type of logical cognition or process which confirms the sense-data as being a simple idea for the mind to assess. Our sense-impressions usually produce a simple idea in us or they produce a simple feeling and usually if the impressions on our senses are strong our minds can create a simple idea that contains a strong feeling (emotion) and this can be said to be extremely vivid in nature. A simple feeling (emotion) can be viewed as being slightly different to a simple idea even though most emotions are produced by simple ideas. A simple emotion is an impression or feeling that exists within us irrespective of thoughts or ideas being experienced, a simple emotion is simply felt and experienced without thought.
A simple emotion is basically alike to an intuition, or instinct in its simplest and purest form, it can be said to be the things we know to be true without having to think about it. We know things to be correct and true not because we think them to be so purely by thinking, but because we think and feel them to be correct and truly real and this is because the truth is something that is not only thought, but is something that is felt also. Ideas are involved in thinking and reasoning and emotions are what we know and feel to be correct irrespective of thinking, but most emotions come either from our simple ideas or they exist as simple emotions directly from our sense-impressions and it is sufficed to say that our emotions in general are very complex in origin and also in admixture of actual origin either from ideas and also directly from our sense- impressions and this is known to have created many a confusion in emotional wrangles between people. The emotions, passions and instincts are all part of the physical form and this is the main reason why simple emotions are instinctually felt through our sense impressions without requiring thought as a certainty of the validity of certain truths. Most of the ideas in our memory are simple ideas because when we attempt to remember a complex idea we find ourselves piecing together one simple idea after another until all the correct simple ideas have been pieced together in such a way as to present the correct complex idea that we have chosen to remember in our mind. When we attempt to create a complex idea in our mind that we have never thought about before it becomes necessary to use imagination and intuition as well as logical reasoning in our attempt to create this complex idea whether it be a representation of reality or merely imaginary.
It can be pointed out that our imagination is somehow connected to our intuition and instincts, for example, our intuition appears to be a faculty that is connected to thinking and reasoning whereas instinct is a very physical thing and is connected to our senses. Sometimes in the dark we imagine things to be there in front of us, or in a corner which are not really there and this is a form of instinctual imagination and this type of imagination is connected to the fact that our senses can fool us and play tricks on us, but we also have a reasoning form of imagination that is connected to our faculty of intuition and this is the type of imagination that is used in art and literature and is also used in thought experiments etc. Our complex ideas begin to form and take shape once we have reflected on many of the simple ideas that our minds are furnished with and this introspection and reflection occurs due to the thinking, imagining, willing, doubting and connecting of simple ideas etc. Simple ideas appear to be mainly of two basic types which our senses are able register as a simple idea, the first is the intuitive and relational type such as you find in geometry, algebra and arithmetic and the second type of simple idea is usually intuitive, and is also a matter of fact that is generalized and particular, the first type is more static and eternal like universals and the second type is both universal and particular. I am sure that other types of simple idea can be found in nature if considerable thought is given to the matter of simple ideas. In the philosophical movements of "idealism" and "rationalism" many subjective and fancy concepts were created and developed by the philosophers of these movements. Many of the subjective and fancy concepts that were created and developed in the movements of idealism and rationalism were redundant and erroneous concepts and have lowered the quality of philosophy in general ever since and this negative and weakening influence of redundant and erroneous concepts in philosophy has lead to further despondency and illusion in the philosophy that came after and it has allowed more negative and subjective fancies to appear and be produced in a lot of the philosophy of the 20th century and also up until the present day.
For simple ideas, concepts and notions to be valid they must come from reality and experience, and this is because our simple ideas must correspond to known facts of reality if we are ever going to be able or capable of creating complex ideas that are of any real truth and validity from them.
Philosophy is a science that is empirical, real, factual and objective and true philosophy does not have anything to do with the subjective fancies of ignorant people and this is only because most truths are objective and this is because most of our simple and complex ideas of the truth come from our sense-impressions especially those ideas of eternal truths which seem so profound and moving and only some or a few truths can be considered to be subjective in origin and a lot of subjective truths are usually temporary and our subjective ideas and truths usually exist as part of the minor facts of our day to day experiences. Some of our subjective ideas exist also in the form of original ideas, or insights we might happen to have in our lives of which some are real, and true whereas some are merely subjective fancies and are usually imagined. Our "ideas" and "theories" of objective reality if they are true always correspond to reality objectively and can be proven empirically and are not mere descriptions by the use of words but are actual explanations and descriptions of objective reality and processes in reality. Objective reality does not exist in words alone it exists objectively as a fact that is a part of reality and philosophy explains, and describes reality as it is. Language was developed by our ancestors to communicate ideas of objective reality and philosophy is not a language game that is stuck in language or in erroneous concepts. I must state that ideas do not exist in the literal sense in nature and what we call ideas are merely attributes, properties, forms and moments of processes which are part of the continuum of nature. Our ideas of these attributes, properties, forms and moments in processes are either abstract or concrete. What we call abstract ideas exist as potential and possibility in reality but can only be realized by thinking minds as an idea, for instance, triangles and squares do not exist in nature but are abstract ideas or concepts in reality for thinking minds to realize. Some aspects of reality seem to be abstract but exist as an actuality, for example, gravity and the strong force seem like abstract forces but are actual forces because we cannot see them, but we can feel them and know them to exist. The reason that I mention that ideas do not exist in nature in the literal sense is because ideas are a product of thought, you need to be able to think to produce ideas and to think you need a brain. Nature in general is not a brain and does not have a brain therefore it cannot think ideas or consist of ideas, ideas cannot exist in an unthinking medium. The brains of human beings convert reality into simple ideas in our thinking because our brains can only handle and process one thing at a time or just a few, but not too many. I must mention that synthetic a priori ideas and knowledge contribute to many of our complex ideas also and this synthetic a priori knowledge is only possible due to our DNA inheritance which as I have mentioned elsewhere is a natural inclination and ability inherent within us to know these truths.

ON THE ABSTRACT AND THE TANGIBLE

Abstractions only exist because reality and its processes exist and abstractions should not be viewed as existing purely in our minds but should be viewed as being mental representations of processes in reality that are not always visual or fully tangible. Also abstractions in the normal sense of the word applies also as in abstract thinking existing in thought or idea but not necessarily existing in physical or practical existence. Abstractions are more useful when they are applied to reality in the sense of being conceptual representations of processes in reality that we have observed to exist but are not necessarily visually seen. A lot of the processes in reality are abstract and cannot be seen and abstractions cannot exist without actual processes in reality occurring therefore abstractions are analogous to processes in reality that are not always visual or not completely tangible. The a priori concept in some ways describes abstract processes in the sense of how people attain ideas and knowledge about the truth of reality which they have had and have not experienced directly through their senses. The many ideas that human beings have of abstractions must surely come from the fact that many processes in nature and reality itself seem very abstract. Also many of the processes in our genetic make-up itself and also in the workings of our minds seem very abstract and have their tangible source in the brain. Many of our simple ideas are abstract in either the imaginary or realistic sense of being a representation of something real. All simple ideas can be said to have an essence and nature of their own whether they be imaginary or real or whether in the concrete or tangible sense. All abstract ideas have an essence or distinguishing nature which enables us to know it and distinguish it from all other ideas and this essence and nature can be found also when simple ideas are part of a more complex idea that this simple idea may be a part of. The ideas that we have of imaginary abstractions come from the ideas we have of real abstractions and the ideas of real abstractions come from our sense impressions of reality and its processes. Ultimately all the abstractions that we can think of or conceive of come from the actual processes in reality, so that the best way to understand abstractions would be to attempt to understand the actual processes in reality and how they operate. The best way to try to understand the processes in reality or in nature generally is to picture them or think of them in an abstract way and also in a tangible way also whenever possible and this should be part of our thought experiments which in a lot of cases can yield good results except in situations where it is not possible to think of both of these things at the same time.

ESSENCE, CHARACTER AND INNER IDENTITY

Even though I have defined the concept of "being" as not consisting of a fixed essence, or entity as a whole, or in general it still becomes necessary to mention a very important aspect of the concept of "being" and this is whether human beings have an inner essence, or character that never changes and is what defines them even though their personality and being may change in general. This inner identity, essence, or character must exist in the form of a pivot, or foundational aspect. It is difficult to thing of anything substantial in nature that does not have a foundation, or base and this includes the concept of being also and this must be so even though the concept of being is a very progressive, and changeable thing and is not completely fixed as I have mentioned before in my essay called " being and becoming" and this is so unless we are mentioning inanimate objects, or inorganic matter which is fixed to a great extent and still comes under the category of being. Anything that is to rely on its own essence, character, will-power, and intelligence for its own identity is more real, and genuine than anything that simply adapts, and reconciles and tries to fit in, or please. These latter qualities of the personality that tries to adapt, reconcile, and fit into situations is more fleeting, and shallow. It should be pointed out that our character is the only thing that truly belongs to us as human beings because it is the only thing that we have a complete control over, aswell as it being a complete representation of us without any form of indirect expression, or ownership. To not be able to think for oneself is one of the greatest crimes one can commit to oneself but yet society, and certain people try to rob us of this privilege by expecting us to think in a way that is foreign to our very nature itself. Everyone appears to be born with their own personal character, and inner identity but then society and other people try to drown out this aspect of ourselves by their conditioning and a lot of people end up thinking through cultural, societal, and indirect means instead of developing their own true character, or will, and this is a shame. One can even come across many philosophers who quote other philosophers from the past saying so and so wrote this, and so and so wrote that instead of saying, or writing something they came up with themselves. It must be pointed out that it does take a lot of confidence, and belief in oneself to develop one's own way of thinking to its fullest expression but it is well worth the effort because a philosopher who cannot think in their own way is of no use to the philosophical, or thinking community because it is new theories, and new ideas, and original thinking which pushes philosophy forward and enables it to progress. There are people who think that because culture, and society exists as a temporary truth and we happen to live amongst its fleeting processes that we cannot somehow transcend it by alligning ourselves with more general, universal, and eternal truths which can guide us to a greater understanding of processes, reality, and truth of a more significant, real, and eternal kind, but this way of thinking is plain wrong because we can, and are able to transcend temporary truth to a high degree in our thoughts, and in our feelings but maybe not physically. Academic philosophers, and thinkers in general expect references, and quotes for all manner of truths to be found in the written works of others but rarely expect to find the truth in the processes of reality itself, but it is reality itself which is alike to the greatest book you will ever get around to study to find the truth if you so choose to find it. Another great fault of academic philosophers, and thinkers is the importance that they place on technical forms of argumentation, but this type of behaviour is counterproductive because attempting , and trying to describe the truth should not be about pursuing argumentation. In general philosophers, and thinkers spend too much time attempting, and trying to win discussions, and this behaviour leads nowhere, and is counterproductive because the truth is rarely arrived at by the use of this method. Philosophers, and thinkers should disagree only in a constructive way so that a conclusion about the truth can be arrived at through dialectical discussion. Philosophers, and thinkers in general should not be disagreeing simply to disagree so that they can be right and feel they have won some kind of imaginary competition of the ego. Argumentation and its development is a sign that one lacks knowledge of the truth of reality because the truth is self-evident and should be studied and accepted in this way. Knowledge of the truth of reality produces agreement, and not argumentation because the truth about reality is a self-evident thing.
To argue a point should be a last resort attempt to convince another thinker of the truth of your own point and how it relates to reality and its processes. In philosophy axioms and their development are more important than arguments, and their development should be encouraged, and sought after by all philosophers.
Axioms and their development in philosophy are a good groundwork, and base for all future endeavours in attempting to integrate truths aswell having a stable foundation from which to work from. There are even academic philosophers, and thinkers today who don't think that a person has the right to consider themselves a philosopher who does not have a degree, and profession in philosophy or does not use the methods of academia as if the philosophers of antique greece who stood around street corners debating the truth were not true philosophers. And it is this technical, modern, and erroneous attitude of academia that attempts take away the joy, and organic creativity out of philosophy, and it also tries to rob the individual person, or philosopher of his true essence, character, inner identity, and will. True philosophers have never claimed to be academic, or scientific, and have never claimed argumentation to be an important thing, they have merely claimed to be lovers of wisdom, and truth and they have attempted to figure it out, and describe it to others. A person can clearly change their own behaviour through conditioning, but it is much harder to change their own nature. A homosexual person can change his own behaviour, but he cannot change being a homosexual. We it seems can only partly change our own nature and we can only do this with those parts of ourselves that are least ingrained within us, we cannot change what is most ingrained within our own nature.