Ron:
Matt, I snipped this excerpt from Wiki but it defines
The concept I am exploring. I think it says a lot
About s/o in our language and how DQ/SQ functions in
It's place.
"In philosophy it is commonly considered that every object is either
abstract or concrete. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta
(sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta
(sing. concretum). 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 Abstracta Concreta
Tennis - Tennis player
Redness - A particular inscription of the word "red"
5 (number) - Five cats
Justice - Court
humanism - human
art-art
quality-quality
good-good
Philosophers disagree over just what makes the items in the first column
abstract.
Location:
One well-known proposal is that an object is abstract if and only if it
lacks a location in space. Thus justice is abstract because it seems
impossible to say where it is. One potential problem for this proposal
is that certain typically abstract objects, like the game of tennis,
arguably do have a sort of spatial location (e.g. "Tennis is alive and
well in New York City"). Another problem is that some arguably concrete
mental objects (e.g. Tim's pang of concern for his eldest daughter) do
not have spatial location.
Causal power:
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.
In philosophy:
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 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.
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".
"Quality"?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
