This is a fascinating philosophical question about the architecture of thought itself. Different traditions have proposed different "parts" or building blocks of intellectual concepts. Here are several frameworks worth considering:
Empiricist philosophers like Locke and Hume argued concepts emerge from sensory impressions combined with memory traces. Modern embodied cognition research adds motor schemas — we understand "grasp" partly through our motor experience of grasping.
Kant and contemporary structuralists suggest concepts require relational frameworks — categories, causal connections, temporal ordering. A concept isn't just a thing, but a thing in relation to other things.
Semiotic theories propose concepts need signifiers (words, symbols) paired with signified meanings. Without some form of symbolic representation, abstract concepts struggle to stabilize.
Cognitive psychology suggests concepts contain prototypical instances (the "ideal" example) plus exemplar memories (specific instances we've encountered). We categorize by similarity to these stored references.
Pragmatist approaches argue concepts include purpose or function — what the concept is for. Understanding "chair" involves knowing its intended use, not just its appearance.
If I were to propose an integrated model, I'd suggest concepts form from:
This reflects how modern cognitive science increasingly sees concepts as distributed, embodied, and context-dependent rather than discrete units.
What draws you to this question? Are you exploring a particular theory, or working on something creative that requires this kind of conceptual breakdown?