Abstract object

An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is whether an object is considered abstract or concrete. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum).

In philosophy

The type-token distinction identifies that physical objects are tokens of a particular type of thing. The "type" that it is a part of itself is an abstract object. The abstract-concrete distinction is often introduced and initially understood in terms of paradigmatic examples of objects of each kind:

Examples of Abstract and Concrete Objects

Abstractum	Concreta
Tennis	A tennis game
Redness	The red coloring of an apple
Five	Five cats
Justice	A just action
Human	Socrates

Abstract objects have often garnered the interest of philosophers because they are taken to raise problems for popular theories. In ontology, abstract objects are considered problematic for physicalism and some forms of naturalism. Historically, the most important ontological dispute about abstract objects has been the problem of universals. In epistemology, abstract objects are considered problematic for empiricism. If abstracta lack causal powers or spatial location, how do we know about them? It is hard to say how they can affect our sensory experiences, and yet we seem to agree on a wide range of claims about them. Some, such as Edward Zalta and arguably Plato (in his Theory of Forms), have held that abstract objects constitute the defining subject matter of metaphysics or philosophical inquiry more broadly. To the extent that philosophy is independent of empirical research, and to the extent that empirical questions do not inform questions about abstracta, philosophy would seem specially suited to answering these latter questions.

Abstract objects and causality

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.^[1]

Concrete and abstract thinking

Jean Piaget uses the terms "concrete" and "formal" to describe the different types of learning. Concrete thinking involves facts and descriptions about everyday, tangible objects, while abstract (formal operational) thinking involves a mental process.

Concrete idea	Abstract idea
Heavy things sink	It will sink if its density is greater than the density of the liquid.
You breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide	Gas exchange takes place between the air in the alveoli and the blood
Plants get water through their roots	Water diffuses through the cell membrane of the root hair cells...

Terminology

Further information: Noun#Concrete nouns and abstract nouns

In language, abstract and concrete objects are often synonymous with concrete nouns and abstract nouns. In English, many abstract nouns are formed by adding noun-forming suffixes ("-ness", "-ity", "-tion") to adjectives or verbs. Examples are "happiness", "circulation" and "serenity".

See also

• Abstraction
• Abstract structure
• Nominalism
• Object (philosophy)
• Object of the mind
• Philosophy of mathematics
• Platonic form
• Problem of universals
• Universal (metaphysics)
• Immanuel Kant
• Type-token distinction
• Conceptual framework

References

1. ^ Abstract Objects entry by Gideon Rosen in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

External links

• Nominalism, Realism, Conceptualism,Interface, from The Catholic Encyclopedia