You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

endoself comments on What do professional philosophers believe, and why? - Less Wrong Discussion

31 Post author: RobbBB 01 May 2013 02:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (249)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: endoself 05 May 2013 05:44:54PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think we really can. The categories of concrete and abstract objects are supposed to carve reality at its joins: I see a chair, I prove a theorem. You can't really do this sort of analysis without reference to the chairs and the theorems, and if you do make those references, you must have already settled the question of whether a chair is concrete, and a fortiori whether concrete objects exist. The alternative, studying concepts that were originally intended to carve reality at its joins without intending to do so yourself, has historically been unproductive, except to some extent in math.

Comment author: Jack 05 May 2013 07:15:15PM 0 points [-]

Right, so accept that both abstract and concrete objects exist.. While you're not doing science feel free to think about what abstraction is, what concrete means and so on.

Comment author: endoself 05 May 2013 07:25:21PM 0 points [-]

I don't think I've been clear. I'm saying that the categories of abstract and concrete objects are themselves generated by experience and are intended to reflect natural categories, and that it's not useful to think about what abstraction is without thinking about particular abstract objects and what makes us consider them abstract.