login about faq

I understand that abstractions do not exist. Does this hold true for concepts as well? Why or why not?

asked Oct 20 '10 at 12:32

Damian's gravatar image


edited Oct 20 '10 at 13:06

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦

Could the questioner expand on what he is puzzled by? This is a complex topic.

(Nov 05 '10 at 18:12) Mindy Newton ♦ Mindy%20Newton's gravatar image

The relationship between abstractions and concretes, or concepts and reality, is discussed at length in Ayn Rand's monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which I highly recommend for making any sense of what I'm about to type...

Basically, this comes down to being clear on the distinction between the "what" and the "how" in awareness -- the object of awareness, in contrast to the form which that awareness takes. Concepts are a way of regarding things, a certain kind of abstract perspective on concretes that stems from the natures of the concretes involved (and the nature of our minds). That is, we humans enjoy a conceptual form of awareness.

So concepts and abstractions certainly exist as an objective, reality-based form of awareness, but they do not have any existence independent of the mind that is using them.

answered Oct 20 '10 at 13:03

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦

edited Oct 20 '10 at 13:37

Are you saying then that they exist epistemologically but not metaphysically- that they exist as a method but not a thing?

(Oct 20 '10 at 14:02) Damian Damian's gravatar image

Yes, but I was avoiding that sort of language here. (Because I wanted to try to limit potential confusions... for example: methods are things, too. :^)

(Oct 20 '10 at 15:10) Greg Perkins ♦♦ Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

A concept is essentially the same thing as an abstraction.

Concepts (abstractions) are a result of an act of consciousness called conceptualization (or abstraction). A new concept is a new aspect of one's consciousness.

The concept is of a type of thing you might be aware of.

For instance, once you conceptualize tables as such, your are said to have a concept of "table". The concept exists, not as a physical thing, but as a new aspect of your mind which enables you to deal with tables more effectively throughout your life.

Given the concept, you have a foundation for learning all kinds of additional things about tables as such, e.g. that some are made of wood, that some can be folded up, that surgeons perform operations on them, etc.

Given the concept, you are also able to recognize tables you might come across -- tables which might look very different from any table you've seen before.

Given the concept, you can think about tables, e.g. how you might make a better one than the one you already have.

And, of course, having a concept of "table" allows you to write and speak about tables.

All these things about concepts make them very real, if not physical, things.

answered Oct 21 '10 at 19:12

John%20Paquette's gravatar image

John Paquette ♦

The statement "abstractions as such do not exist " is misleading. Concepts are "mental existents". Mrs Rand expressed the difficulty she had with the ontological status of concepts in the Q and A of ITOE. She said she abhorred "neologisms" and didn't quite know what to call concepts and simply said "mental something" . But elsewhere she called then mental existents. I think this is the technically correct view.

(Jul 05 '11 at 13:48) Thefirstof Theirreturn Thefirstof%20Theirreturn's gravatar image

Concepts are a product of human thought, and a necessary means of higher-level human thought. They are persistent yet alterable aspects of human consciousness. You form them, and then you use them, perhaps forming more of them. To use one, you need a perceptual symbol for it, called a word.

(Jul 05 '11 at 15:06) John Paquette ♦ John%20Paquette's gravatar image

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Share This Page:



Asked: Oct 20 '10 at 12:32

Seen: 3,501 times

Last updated: Jul 05 '11 at 15:06