Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Metaphysical Challenge: Why do abstract objects spark heated debates among philosophers?
The basic distinction between abstract and concrete objects is an important topic in philosophy and art. Although there is no consensus on the exact definition of the two, some common examples are: numbers, sets, and ideas are abstract objects, while plants, dogs, and planets are concrete objects. This distinction has triggered discussions on various related issues in the philosophical community, reflecting the importance of such abstract concepts in metaphysics and semantics.
Abstract objects are often used to explore the nature of existence.
There are several popular definitions of the distinction between the abstract and the concrete, including: those that exist within and outside of time and space, the presence and absence of causal relationships, and those that exist in the physical versus the mental realm. Philosophers disagree on these definitions, especially on how to define "necessary existence" and "contingent existence." Although opinions on these ideas vary, most scholars agree that rocks are concrete objects while numbers are abstract objects.
Abstract object theory studies the properties and functions of abstract objects, in which attributes can be connected to objects through concretization and encoding.
Abstract object theory also explores the "type-token" distinction. A token is a specific example of a certain type of thing, and the type is regarded as an abstract object. This distinction has triggered philosophers to think deeply about physical entities and abstract phenomena, especially on ontology. The problem of abstract objects poses a challenge to both physicalism and some forms of naturalism.
Abstract objects are thought to pose a challenge to empiricism because they lack causal power and spatial existence.
Some philosophers, such as Edward Zalta and Argentine Marley, have argued that abstract objects constitute the defining subject of metaphysical or philosophical inquiry. They point out that although philosophy is independent of empirical research, its questions about abstract objects are still a key part of philosophical thinking. In modern philosophy, Kant and Hegel also deeply discussed the difference between abstraction and concreteness and put forward some far-reaching theories.
The existence of concepts cannot be directly obtained through perception, which makes it epistemologically controversial.
Another common view is that something is abstract if it lacks causal power. This view is reasonable for abstract concepts in mathematics such as the empty set. However, what exactly it means to have causal abilities remains unclear. This further leads to a re-evaluation and classification of abstract objects in philosophy.
In recent years, the philosophical community has gradually paid increasing attention to the introduction of "quasi-abstract entities". Quasi-abstract objects are regarded as a new type of objects that exist in time but do not exist in space. Their existence is of great significance to certain social objects. States in the international legal system, for example, exhibit properties of quasi-abstract objects that facilitate analysis of how they operate within social structures.
In psychology, Jean Piaget used the terms "concrete" and "abstract" to describe two different types of learning. Concrete thinking focuses on everyday perceptible objects, while abstract thinking involves a mental process that embodies the human understanding and application of abstract concepts.
The distinction between concrete thinking and abstract thinking helps us understand the different levels of learning.
Overall, the philosophical questions raised by abstract objects are not only fascinating but also challenge our fundamental notions of existence. Among all the debates and analyses, there is a question worthy of everyone’s consideration: What role do abstract objects play in our world?
