> > The classes are a good idea but they are not a must for an Object
> > Oriented environment.
> >
> > In Smalltalk/Squeak the classes represent the concepts (the forms in
> > Plato's theory).  The relation between the objects and their classes
> > is a isA defintion.  And you know, we use to say "everything is an
> > Object"... so make sense that every concept is a sub-concept of
> > Object.
>
> yes, that's ok. all that i am capable of recognizing has a name:
> object. but  not all objects are classes. class is an object. but in
> smalltalk, every  object belongs to a class.
>
> i think i do not recognize classes of objects but only objects (that's
> the  definition of recognition),

We're not talking just about recognition but about knowledge.

We you see a real cat, you reflect on the concrete cat you are seeing but
also about the concept of Cat (or/and the concept of animal, thing,
somethingBrown, somethingLovely, etc, etc).  We can avoid to use our
knowledge (the knowledge we got on the past) to reflect over "this cat I'm
seeing now".

> classes are bundles of objects which
> share some  common property.

Agree.

> classes are created solely by my mind,

Smalltalk is a place to put your ideas.  If after our of playing with the
reality you find a good abstraction that describes this reality, you will
impact on your image so every user of your ST can (in some way) use your
experience.

> but
> objects, on the  contrary, emerge from the process of recognition
> (which includes parts of  mind as well).

The classes also emerge from the process of recognition, our senses pre-
categorize the real objects and we receive a *representation* of the
reality.

> so it seems good to me to
> define an object orentied system as  to be composed of objects and not
> of classes (as for example in Self).

>From my point of view we need both.

Cheers,

Diego