|
Sponsored Links
In philosophy it is commonly considered that every object is either abstract or concrete. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). The abstract-concrete distinction is often introduced and initially understood in terms of paradigmatic examples of objects of each kind Philosophers disagree over just what makes the items in the first column abstract. One well-known proposal is that an object is abstract if and only if it lacks a location in space. Thus justice is abstract because it has no spatial location. One potential problem for this proposal is that certain typically abstract objects, like the game of tennis, arguably do have a sort of spatial location (e.g. "Tennis is alive and well in New York City"). Another problem is that some arguably concrete mental objects (e.g. Tim’s pang of concern for his eldest daughter) perhaps do not have spatial location. Another popular proposal for drawing the abstract-concrete distinction has it that an object is abstract if it lacks any causal powers. A causal power is an ability to affect something causally. Thus the empty set is abstract because it cannot act on other objects. One problem for this view is that it is not clear exactly what it is to have a causal power. For a more detailed exploration of the abstract-concrete distinction, follow the link below to the Stanford Encyclopedia article.
|
Abstract Object Subcategories
Abstract Object Articles
|
| 
