Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Re: Abstract and Concrete (Read 1021 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Re: Abstract and Concrete
« on: 2003-11-23 13:52:55 » |
 |
[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.
It really is very interesting - are, for instance, memes abstract or
concrete?
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.
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
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>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.68
Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
|
|
RE: virus: Re: Abstract and Concrete
« Reply #1 on: 2003-11-23 15:50:28 » |
|
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.
>
>It really is very interesting - are, for instance, memes abstract or
>concrete?
Yes. :-)
This takes a bit of discussion and examples to make it clear. A meme is
an abstract *information pattern." But like *all* information it has to be
encoded in concrete matter. So a particular kind of "paper airplane" meme
can be encoded in brains, in a video of someone making one, in a drawing of
how to make one, in text describing how to fold one up, or in an actual
physical paper airplane (because the meme for how to fold one can be
extracted from the folded paper by noting the steps of unfolding a paper
airplane to a flat sheet).
Keith Henson
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
