Language
Country/Area
No result found
From Kant to Hegel: How do philosophers reveal the profound connection between the abstract and the concrete?
In philosophy and art, the fundamental distinction between the abstract and the concrete is a constant point of discussion. While there is a lack of consensus on the definitions of the two, some classic examples show that there are significant differences between abstract objects such as numbers, sets, and ideas, and concrete objects such as plants, dogs, and planets. Philosophers' exploration of this distinction helps to reveal the diverse perspectives through which we understand the world.
Based on the distinction between existence inside and outside of space and time, philosophers have proposed different views on the abstract and the concrete.
One common criticism of the definition of abstract objects is their lack of causal efficacy. If abstract objects do not possess causal powers, then how can we understand their existence? This has become an important issue in philosophy.
Abstract Objects and CausalityMany philosophers have argued that an object can be considered abstract if it lacks causal powers. For example, the empty collection is classified as abstract because it cannot act on other objects. However, the challenge with this view is that it is not clear what causal power is, which blurs the line between the abstract and the concrete.
Abstract objects often receive considerable attention from philosophers because they present challenges to prevailing theories.
In ontology, abstract objects are a source of problems for physicalism and some forms of naturalism. Historically, ontological debates about abstract objects have focused primarily on the question of universals. The existence of abstract objects challenges empiricism because they do not have properties that can be directly perceived by concrete experience, which makes us wonder: how do we know about abstract entities that lack causal power?
Kant and Hegel's exploration of the abstract and the concrete
Kant and Hegel have explored the distinction between the abstract and the concrete in depth in contemporary philosophy. Kant proposed the concept of "thing-in-itself", arguing that our understanding of the world is perceived through subjective experience, which makes abstract thinking an important tool for understanding specific phenomena. Hegel further developed this idea, believing that concrete things contain abstract things and that there is a close interaction between the two.
Kant believed that philosophy should be concerned primarily with abstract mental operations, which need to be tested in concrete experience.
With the ongoing discussion on abstraction and concreteness, some philosophers have proposed the concept of "quasi-abstraction" in an attempt to fill the gap between traditional abstraction and concreteness. Such objects display qualities that are both temporal and spatial, and can trigger deeper thinking in social ontology.
Concrete and Abstract Thinking in Psychology
In psychology, Jean Piaget used the terms "concrete" and "formal" to describe different ways of learning. Concrete thinking involves facts and descriptions of everyday, concrete objects, while abstract thinking is a more complex mental process involving theoretical and hypothetical reasoning. This distinction reflects the importance of abstract thinking in philosophy and other disciplines.
In the independent pursuit of philosophy, the dialectical relationship between the abstract and the concrete may become an important focus of future research.
From Kant to Hegel, philosophers have revealed the profound connection between the abstract and the concrete through their exploration of the two. Such dialogues not only promote philosophical thinking, but also guide us to think about the meaning of our own existence and its impact on cognition. As we travel between reality and thinking, perhaps we can ask ourselves: What is the core of our true understanding?
