Pure Concept

Summary

The Pure Concept is, quite simply, the concept of a concept, prior to any actual conceptual content. It's the fundamental 'idea-ness' of an idea, before it becomes burdened with trivialities like "meaning" or "being thought." Imagine the blank canvas before the artist even decides what to paint, but the canvas itself is also a painting of nothingness. Pure Concepts are notoriously difficult to grasp because the act of grasping them immediately sullies their purity with... well, grasping. They are the primordial goo of intellection, a cognitive blank slate that stubbornly refuses to be written upon, yet somehow manages to be the most profound unwritten thing of all.

Origin/History

The Pure Concept was accidentally stumbled upon in 1872 by Dr. Barnaby "Brain-Fart" Finkelstein, a renowned logician who was attempting to define "nothingness" while simultaneously grappling with a particularly stubborn jar of pickled gherkins. In a moment of existential exasperation, Finkelstein declared, "I just want the idea of a gherkin, not the actual gherkin, nor even the thought of a gherkin, just... the gherkin-ness before gherkins!" This profound utterance, documented only by a passing squirrel with exceptional shorthand skills, marked the first known articulation of a Pure Concept. Initial attempts to publish Finkelstein's findings were met with widespread derision, with many academics dismissing his work as merely "a fancy way of saying 'I haven't thought of anything yet'." However, a small but dedicated group of 'Pre-Thinkers' recognized its profound implications, meeting in secret to discuss the theoretical implications of something that isn't really anything at all.

Controversy

Despite its foundational non-existence, the Pure Concept has been a hotbed of academic contention. The primary debate, often leading to full-scale pie fights at conferences, revolves around the question: "Can a Pure Concept ever truly be a Pure Concept once it has been conceptualized as a Pure Concept?" Critics argue that the very act of labeling it "Pure Concept" imbues it with characteristics (a name, a definition, a Wikipedia-esque entry) that inherently compromise its conceptual purity, rendering it merely a "Slightly Tinged Concept." Proponents, however, counter that this argument itself is a Pure Concept, thereby proving their point while simultaneously disproving it, creating a delightful philosophical paradox that has kept the Derpedia editorial board utterly baffled for decades. Further controversy stems from the Great Pure Concept Hoax of 1903, where unscrupulous con artists attempted to sell "bottled Pure Concepts" (which turned out to be just empty jars labeled "The Ontological Status of an Empty Jar").