hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.91
Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Re: Abstract and Concrete
« on: 2004-07-19 09:00:53 » |
 |
Cleaning mail files and found this never made it out.
At 08:52 PM 23/11/03 +0200, you wrote:
>[Blunderov]
>I was interested to discover that the distinction between abstract and
>concrete is something that has only very recently come to the attention
>of Philososphy.
Hmm. Interesting.
>It really is very interesting - are, for instance, memes abstract or
>concrete?
see previous post
>Best Regards
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
><snip>
>Abstract Objects
>It is widely supposed that every object falls into one of two
>categories: Some things are concrete; the rest abstract. The distinction
>is supposed to be of fundamental significance for metaphysics and
>epistemology. The present article surveys a number of recent attempts to
>say how it should be drawn.
This terminology is awkward. *Objects* at least *material objects* should
all be concrete.
>Introduction
>The abstract/concrete distinction has a curious status in contemporary
>philosophy. It is widely agreed that the distinction is of fundamental
>importance. But there is no standard account of how the distinction is
>to be explained. There is a great deal of agreement about how to
>classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged
>that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract,
>whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete. Indeed the list
>of paradigms may be extended indefinitely:
>
>ABSTRACTA CONCRETA
>Classes Stars
Classes are a way to group similar things. So you can split the world into
classes of living and non living things, living things into animals and
plants, animals into mammals and birds, mammals into primates and rodents,
primates into apes and monkeys, apes into chimps and bonobos. It is only
when you get down to a particular animal (or particular group) that you
move out of the abstract into the concrete.
>Propositions Protons
>Concepts The electromagnetic field
>The letter A Stanford University
>Dante's Inferno James Joyce's copy of Dante's Inferno
>... ...
>
>The challenge remains, however, to say what underlies this alleged
>dichotomy. In the absence of such an account, the philosophical
>significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to
>classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to "intuition". But
>unless we know what makes for abstractness and concreteness, we cannot
>know what (if anything) hangs on the classification.
>
>Historical Remarks
>The contemporary distinction between abstract and concrete is not an
>ancient distinction. Indeed, there is a strong case for the view that
>despite occasional anticipations, it plays no significant role in
>philosophy before the 20th century.
></snip>
Bizarre. If you can point to it (in one directly), it is a concrete
object. If you can't it is an abstraction (abstracta?). Of course a lot
of times abstracta and concrete depend on context. If you are talking
about "the letter A" as the first letter of the Roman alphabet it is
clearly abstract. If you are pointing to a card with a large printed "A"
on it, you have shifted into the concrete.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Author
Logged
