What is a concept?

So in your opinion, even simple concepts like a table, a chair, and a rat ‘ a person or a group suddenly understands or perceives their idea’??
This sounds absurd to me, what idea is there in these concepts? It is simply a description of a group of tangibles.
I can agree with you in everything that concerns moral norms, whose precise ideas can be perceived and discussed with the mind as you described (and therefore it is necessary to discuss whether a democratic system of government is good), but in what concerns the thousands of simple concepts that we use every day, it is very difficult to accept them as ideas that we must reveal and define with the mind

By the way, I of course agree that all primary concepts such as existence, space, time, etc. are ideas that are inherent in us, and with their help we create complex concepts such as table and chair, but to claim that there is an idea of a table and that we work to uncover and define it and only then will we actually realize it does not sound unreasonable to me.

That is, do you think the similarity between one rat and another is arbitrary? To what extent could concepts be defined on a different basis or without a basis at all?

1 All concepts are composed of previous concepts, and therefore it is possible to go back in each concept until we reveal the initial concepts from which it is composed, and the method of composition. Therefore, each concept must ultimately rely on initial concepts. Don't you agree with this?

2. The similarity between rats is not arbitrary, similarity is a realistic thing even without there being a concept that unites them under one name, apart from that how does this refute my claim that a concept is an idea that we created arbitrarily?? After we created and defined the concept of a rat, and before us are two objects that meet the definition we created, then both of them meet the definition we created.

3 You did not answer my question: do you think that a table and a chair are also ideas that need to be revealed to the mind or are things aimed only at moral concepts or initial concepts? (In which I agree with your statement)

There may certainly be complex concepts. I argued that not all of them are creations of our minds, that there are ideas at the base.

Any imagination will understand any two things. The decision to group two objects under one concept is not arbitrary. It is based on correspondence to ideas.

Again, you do not address my question: Do you think that a table and a chair are also existing ideas that need to be revealed to the mind? Or are your words directed only at moral concepts or primary concepts? (In which I agree with your statement), whereas a table and a chair are ideas that we invented in accordance with different objects, for reasons of use and efficiency and not because of a need to adapt them to some sublime ideas.

I would be very happy to receive a response to my last question, this is a topic that really interests me (it seems to me that it is also fundamentally related to the ontological view).

In my opinion, the question of whether all the thousands of everyday concepts such as chair and table (not primary concepts or moral concepts), and other concepts like them, are ideas that we try to orient ourselves to in our minds or just our way of generalizing groups of tangibles according to such and such characteristics, is a fundamental question in the theory of cognition. And I would be happy if you could answer this question for me or alternatively refer to sources on the subject.

The last time I visited the world of ideas, there were so many that I don't remember who I saw. I explained above that there are ideas that exist and some that are built on the basis of existing ones. Who belongs where - this is a question (really not important) that should be addressed to someone who has visited there recently.

Okay, so I don't think we have a disagreement. The primary concepts, including the concepts of morality, are ideas that must be revealed and defined in the eyes of reason, while any non-primary concept (which can be rolled back and revealed from these concepts it is composed of) is just our way of describing groups of tangibles and in itself is not an idea but only the primary concepts from which it is composed.

(This is not exactly what you wrote at the beginning, where you wrote that all concepts, for example democracy, are existing ideas, whereas according to what is said here, the concept of democracy is not an idea, but only the primary concepts that compose it, or the claim that ’democracy is a more moral form of government’ is a claim that belongs in the eyes of reason because it belongs to the realm of morality, but the very concept of democracy is just our way of describing some reality.

I don't understand why this isn't an important discussion in your eyes, but whatever, I'm not arguing with that.

By the way, I am offering here a simple way to identify whether a concept is from the world of ideas without even visiting it.
Any concept that cannot be broken down into previous concepts is a primary concept and its place is in the world of ideas, and its precise boundary must be discussed, as are the concepts of morality (at least the most basic ones).
But all other complex concepts are just a convenient way for us to describe groups of tangibles.
Do you agree with this?

We have a disagreement. I claim that the fundamental ideas exist, and the others are composed of them (and they also exist, even if not in themselves). It is similar to an organism that is composed of cells or molecules. Does it exist or not?
Therefore, in my opinion, the question is not important, because either way, ideas are something objective and not an arbitrary definition. Whether it is something fundamental or an organism composed of fundamental things.
Beyond all this, there may also be ideas that do not exist but are our arbitrary definitions. I have no general criterion for distinguishing between them.
In my opinion, the idea of democracy exists (at least as a complex concept), and is not an arbitrary creature. Regardless of the question of whether democracy is good or bad. I am talking about the concept itself and not about our value judgments about it. Moral values are also a type of ideas, but not those that I am dealing with here. I am talking about the existence of concepts and not of values.

But there is a huge difference between the concept of space or time, which is a primary, ideal concept that man reveals through the eyes of the mind, and the concept of a cell phone or a car, which did not exist until a certain time ago and only physical scientific developments made it possible to create and engineer such tangible objects, and only then did we as humans coin (using a number of primary concepts) the concept of a car or a cell phone.

In other words, the discussion of the definition of primary concepts is a purely conceptual discussion, while we do not engineer complex concepts solely from observing the eyes of the mind at the primary concepts and their composition (because the possibilities are infinite, and they do not just occur to us), but through their creation, we begin with some tangible receptacles (= all kinds of objects and phenomena, some natural and some man-made, such as a car and a cell phone) and we decide to generalize from the collection of tangibles a concept with some characteristics (which, of course, is fundamentally based on the primary concepts, otherwise it would be meaningless).

I can't see what kind of desktop or mobile idea you see in your mind's eye, but I think we've exhausted the discussion.

I do not accept your starting assumption that these concepts did not exist before they were invented. That is the subject of the debate. In my opinion, the inventor of the cell phone did not generalize this idea from observing cell phones. On the contrary, he suddenly discovered this idea (which existed even before) and implemented it. This itself was his discovery. And again, the cell phone here is just an example. I have no criterion for when it is a subjective-invented concept and when it is not.