>Do you need to know the word for chocolate to taste it? The word for sun to be warmed by it?
>>>They are real, physical entities.
That’s not the point of the objection, response or analogy.
>>>Unless you know what the essence is (which requires cognitive function) you can’t recognize the form.
“Knowing” is not always a cognitive function, nor a knowing of forms or abstractions or concepts. To limit knowing to these is well, limiting your knowledge.
Certainly these are necessary for certain discussions and operations. But we can know a great deal without these - and many forms or concepts are even based upon the experience, sense or otherwise.
That’s not the point of the objection, response or analogy.
We can't mix apples and oranges, D.
“Knowing” is not always a cognitive function, nor a knowing of forms or abstractions or concepts. To limit knowing to these is well, limiting your knowledge.
Then what is 'knowing"? Knowledge has to be accessible to consciousness, and therefore must be a cognitive function, even if you are talking about knowledge as mere "awareness". For example, you don't know your blood pressure or your blood sugar levels. This goes beyond mere "awareness" of such concepts. Knowing them implies having a cognitive idea if they are high, low, normal, etc.