[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[david buchanan]

 John said: 
...why isn't an abstraction an independent entity? "independent entity" is certainly an abstraction.  It's just about THEE abstraction when you think about it.  Lets go to the dictionary, shall we?

dmb says:
Yes, let's.  Abstraction –noun 1. an abstract or general idea or term. 2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.

That's enough right there. The most basic definition tells us that an abstraction is a general idea "APART from concrete realities or specific objects". An "independent entity" is a concrete reality or specific object and that is exactly what is OPPOSED to an abstraction.
The value of a general idea is it's ability to apply to a wide range of concrete realities. It is called a generalization precisely because it is NOT a specific instance.
This is truly unbelievable. I have to explain what dictionaries mean? WTF? 

reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal. make (something abstract) more concrete or real : ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Latin res, re- ‘thing’ + -fy .

To reify is to thingify. Abstactions are fine AS abstractions. To reify is to mistake an abstraction for an actual thing.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? A grown-up that has trouble with the dictionary has no business doing metaphysics. 



John said:
Anybody who thinks about anything in any way, IS reifying.  We all do it, all the time.  Wallace in that video post Marsha brought to our attention, pointed to Quantum physicists who go to all this trouble to understand objective reality can't be defined at the office, and then go home and reify anyway.

dmb says:
That's completely ridiculous. The existence of the term "reification" shows that the criticism of this error is well established. The fact that philosophers warn us about this error shows that it is not inherent to thinking itself. If all thinking was inherently an act of reification, a term such as reification would be inconceivable. But it's not. It's in all the dictionaries and people use it all the time. The stuff Marsha quotes is targeting scientific materialism and common sense realism but it makes no sense to shoot the MOQ with that same gun. The MOQ also targets scientific materialism and common sense realism. The MOQ is itself already a warning against exactly the kind of reification that leads to materialistic realism. 


John said:
Once again, you're not being logical. Isn't a concept a thing?  Isn't a thing a concept?  What is the difference then, between "concepts" and "things"?  Round and round, the merry-go-coaster rolls.

dmb says:
Everything changes when you say that the things you thought were things are really just thoughts. In the MOQ there are no things. Think about that thought. But don't mistake it for a thing. 


John said:
What kind of discussions do you want, dave?  The kind where you do all the talking and everybody else goes "ooo"  "ahhhh"?  you want nothing but cheerleaders on the sideline?  Adrie could use some company, I guess. Somebody real might be nice.



dmb says:

Oh, I know. I'm such an insufferable snob. Where do I get the audacity to go around demanding that people understand their own words? I'm just so picky, picky, picky. My standards are just too high. It's not fair. (Due the crying baby) Whaaaahhhh, whaahh, whah. 

C'mon. Think about it. Unless we are all speaking the same language, how can we even begin to have a reasonably intelligent conversation about anything. Do I really need to explain the difference between a thought and thing to a grown man, for christ's sake? You say stuff that would embarrass my 5th grader and then wonder why I fail to respect your awesome I.Q? 

Cheerleaders are fine in a hot tub. In a philosophy forum, they're irrelevant. You're not buying into the popularity thing, remember? You've been saved, reformed, born again and now all you care about is intellectual quality. And dictionaries.