Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Mysteries of Abstraction and Concreteness: Do You Know How They Affect Our Thinking?
In philosophy and art, the distinction between abstract and concrete is a fundamental concept. Although there is a lack of general consensus to clearly define the two, common examples show that numbers, sets, and ideas are abstract objects, while plants, dogs, and planets are concrete objects. Many scholars have proposed a range of possible definitions, including (1) the distinction between being inside and outside of space and time; (2) the distinction between being causally related and not being causally related; (3) the difference between metaphysics and specific things. The difference between relevance and universality; and (4) the difference between the physical realm and the psychological realm.
"Abstract objects are often used in philosophy, especially metaphysics and semantics."
Abstract object theory is a discipline that studies the nature and role of abstract objects. This theory asserts that properties can be associated with objects through instantiation and encoding. Concrete objects exemplify their properties, while abstract objects merely encode these properties. This approach is also known as the dual-symbol strategy.
Abstract and concrete in philosophy
The type-token distinction states that physical objects are tokens of a specific type. The "type" of these objects is itself an abstract object. The distinction between abstract and concrete is usually introduced and initially understood through typical examples of each type of object. Abstract objects often interest philosophers because they pose challenges to mainstream theories. In ontology, abstract objects pose problems for physicalism and some forms of naturalism. Historically, the most important ontological debate over abstract objects has been the question of universality. In epistemology, abstract objects are considered to pose a challenge to empiricism.
"How can we know that abstract objects exist if they lack causal power and spatial location?"
Whether abstract objects can influence our sensory experience remains elusive, yet people seem to agree on various claims about them. Certain philosophers such as Ernst Malley, Eduard Zalta, and perhaps even Plato in his Theory of Ideas have argued that abstract objects constitute fundamental subjects of metaphysical or broader philosophical inquiry. Since philosophy is independent of empirical research and empirical questions have little bearing on questions about abstract objects, philosophy seems well suited to answer those latter questions.
Abstract objects and causality
Another common definition of the distinction between abstract and concrete is that an object is abstract if it lacks causal capabilities. Causal ability refers to the ability to affect other things. For example, the empty set is considered an abstract object because it cannot act to affect other objects. The problem with this view, however, is that the precise meaning of causal power is unclear.
Quasi-abstract entity
In recent years, there has been some philosophical interest in the development of a third category of objects, "quasi-abstractions." Quasi-abstract objects have received particular attention in social ontology and documentality. Some scholars argue that an overly rigid adherence to the Platonic binary between the concrete and the abstract has resulted in many social objects being ignored or denied their existence because they exhibit characteristics that this traditional binary would view as incompatible. Specifically, these objects can have a temporal location but not a spatial location, and be capable of causal behavior (even through representative action). These characteristics are reflected in a range of social objects, including the state of the international legal system.
Concrete and abstract thinking in psychology
Jean Piaget used the words "concrete" and "formal" to describe two different types of learning. Concrete thinking involves facts and descriptions about everyday, concrete objects, while abstract (formal operations) thinking involves mental processes. This distinction in thinking provides insights into psychological research, allowing us to better understand the different ways children and adults think.
Since abstract objects and concrete objects have a profound impact on our way of thinking, how should we understand and deal with the complex relationship between the two in today's society?
