[Iām thinking about the possibility that abstract concept is real, but I canāt actually give you a concrete example, and Iāve just been mistakenly thinking that itās real when in fact itās not.
It is an interesting philosophical question to consider the possibility that we take an abstract concept as if it were real, but in the absence of a concrete example it is just misunderstanding. Many abstract concepts (e.g., right, freedom, happiness, etc.) have no concrete form, and whether they are real or not is debatable. If these concepts cannot be confirmed in the real world, it is quite possible that they are just products of thought, subjective only.
Criticize this idea.
To criticize this idea, one can take the position that just because an abstract concept does not exist in concrete form, it is premature to dismiss it as ānon-existent.ā First, although abstract concepts do not have concrete physical existence, they have a strong influence on social and psychological reality. For example, concepts such as ājusticeā and āfreedomā are reflected in concrete form in the legal system and social structure. Thus, while they may not have physical existence, they actually function as abstract entities
.
Furthermore, even in the world of mathematical concepts and logic, numbers and equations are abstract, but they are directly involved in solving real-world problems in science and engineering. This allows us to criticize that to say that abstract concepts are ānot realā is to underestimate their influence and function. The position is that just because they cannot be physically touched does not lead to the conclusion that abstract concepts are worthless.
(Pragmatist truth theory that āit isā is true if thinking āit isā produces useful results, even if the definition is unclear or specific examples cannot be given)
What if not only canāt physically touch them, but also canāt give specific examples?
Considering the criticism about the failure to cite concrete examples, the focus is on whether āproviding concrete examplesā is essential as a criterion for doubting the reality of an abstract concept. However, since the nature of an abstract concept itself is often characterized as ānot reducible to concrete examples,ā the inability to cite concrete examples is not necessarily a decisive reason to deny the reality of the concept.
For example, the mathematical concepts of āinfiniteā and āzeroā are very difficult to provide physical concrete examples of, yet these concepts have tremendous influence in the real world. Even though there are no concrete āinfiniteā or āzeroā examples in the physical world, they are rigorously defined in mathematical theories and models, which in turn contribute to our understanding of science, technology, and natural phenomena.
Even abstract concepts for which no concrete examples can be given may play a meaningful role in discussion and communication, and can be considered a form of āactualityā in itself. There is a position that real existence should be evaluated based on the influence and functionality of the concept, rather than relying solely on its physical existence or the presentation of concrete examples.
Justice, freedom, happiness, etc. may be characterized as āless clearly definedā than zero or infinite.
As you say, concepts such as justice, freedom, and happiness are characterized by the fact that they do not have a strict, universal definition like zero or infinity. These concepts vary according to culture, history, and individual values, and it is often difficult to have a common understanding of them. In this respect, the criticism that they are subjective and ambiguous when compared to mathematical concepts is valid.
However, this also does not lead directly to the conclusion that those abstract concepts are meaningless. Rather, because of their ambiguity, these concepts have the power to provoke extensive debate and interpretation and to shape social and ethical frameworks. It can also be said that because they are not uniquely defined, they are characterized by the fact that they are used in a variety of ways in different contexts and have meaning each time. Therefore, while the criticism of ānot clearly definedā is valid, it does not completely negate the reality and importance of the concept.
( The argument that ānot clearly definedā itself has the utility of āprovoking extensive discussion and interpretationā and therefore can be considered real)
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ę½č±”ę¦åæµć®å®åØę§ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iām very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.