Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The Abstract and Concrete World

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 12:57:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't given the ideas of concrete and abstract thoughts much consideration, at least not until now. It occurred to me that which is abstract would have universal application, as to the concrete being locally or specially defined. To demonstrate, I may say I love pizza, my spouse, the moon, or my cat; I may say I hate these things, also; however, pizza is not my spouse and the moon is not my cat. That which is abstract may be universally defined. You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives." However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own. "What does hate look like?" "A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die." However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 1:37:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 12:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I haven't given the ideas of concrete and abstract thoughts much consideration, at least not until now. It occurred to me that which is abstract would have universal application, as to the concrete being locally or specially defined. To demonstrate, I may say I love pizza, my spouse, the moon, or my cat; I may say I hate these things, also; however, pizza is not my spouse and the moon is not my cat. That which is abstract may be universally defined. You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives." However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own. "What does hate look like?" "A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die." However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.

Dude... Paragraphs...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 2:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 1:37:44 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I haven't given the ideas of concrete and abstract thoughts much consideration, at least not until now. It occurred to me that which is abstract would have universal application, as to the concrete being locally or specially defined. To demonstrate, I may say I love pizza, my spouse, the moon, or my cat; I may say I hate these things, also; however, pizza is not my spouse and the moon is not my cat. That which is abstract may be universally defined. You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives." However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own. "What does hate look like?" "A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die." However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.

Dude... Paragraphs...

The Fool: lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 3:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 12:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Notes

Concrete Abstractions 1
I haven't given the ideas of concrete and abstract thoughts much consideration, at least not until now.

S-Anthony: It occurred to me that which is abstract would have universal application, as to the concrete being locally or specially defined.

The Fool: If only it was so simple, as simply being in one direction. It seems you moving towards the Aristotelian model of substance.

Perhaps, it appears like that because of the fact that the ideas, are where you are at, that is, in the mind. And so pervade and are extrapolated onto perceptions. But there must be an opposite direction as well. From where we derive new abstract concepts.


On The Hard Concrete

S-Anthony: To demonstrate, I may say I love pizza, my spouse, the moon, or my cat; I may say I hate these things, also; however, pizza is not my spouse and the moon is not my cat.

The Fool: The very relation between language, a symbolic expression, and the things which they express, is an abstract concept. Expression is an abstract concept.

There is a paradoxical problem, with all such concepts, and this is by the very fact that the two are what distinguish each other, and insofar as they are set, of two, it follows that they share a quality. Which makes them ,"A Set" of two.

In the example above, the words, is a thing, an action, and is only a symbol, and so only has meaning insofar as it does symbolize something else. Therefore, there must be a relation, of the word, to the saying it symbolizes. And that is an abstract relation, that relation must be a part of each entity, the word and that which it symbolizes.

http://onedrive.live.com...
And so a solution, like many philosophical problems, becomes a matter of teasing out how they are alike, and how they are not, but when we focus on a set, as a set, we must of course be looking at it from a third perspective, apart from that set, and posit a third kind of entity, from which we can distinguish that which is under investigation, in this case the classification of concrete and abstract.

Against The Ideologist
And so on and so forth for that distinction and its descendent distinctions.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 3:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Concrete Abstractions 2

S-Anthony: You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives."

The Fool: Well first and foremost love and hate our emotional based.

Argument for the origination of love and hate:
The proof is simply a thought experiment were we simply conceive of a context, which is void of all emotions. Here is clear, that this such a context, there is no possibility for love or hate to exist, and so we have a necessary condition of love, or hate which is emotions.

And are not emotions feelings of motivation?!? In other words, the act of motivation, and synonymously the sensation of intrinsic motivation.

What I"m saying is that if there were no emotions there would be no reason, and so synonymously no purpose, in anything or to do anything.

And so, a necessary condition, for meaning or purpose is emotions.

For why would there be a need to do one thing over another, if we feel no persuasion for one of the other?

On Abstraction
S-Anthony: That which is abstract may be universally defined.

The Fool: One type of abstraction, are generalizations summarized, by our mind from a set of particulars which we may experience, in one way or another. By that I mean, we may experience in the mind, in a dream or by our senses.

Another type of distractions are the type which we project, on to an experience to explain a set of variables.

S-Anthony: However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: The act of dying, is not the act of loving, or hating. And all love and hate is not created equal.

"What does hate look like?"

"A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die."

The Fool: Hate doesn"t look like anything. But rather there are visual patterns which are consistent, to contexts where the emotion is inherent in either the perceiver of the context or the participants in the context.

S-Anthony: However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: Emotionless robots, blowing up the World Trade Center, wouldn"t constitute a hate act, but rather simply robots gone wild.

Naked female robots gone wild.
<(8D)

The paradox, I think you"re highlighting, is dissolved, when you recognize that in each case you"ve given, someone is giving and an Unequal balance of moral worth to one group or person as opposed to another. And this unbalanced, is synonymously, and injustice. (Not to be confused with inequity.) Where a general inequity, is not necessarily an injustice.

Against The Ideologist

It is in that very nature where, all love and or hate is not created equal.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:24:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 3:45:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/27/2014 12:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Notes

Concrete Abstractions 1
I haven't given the ideas of concrete and abstract thoughts much consideration, at least not until now.

S-Anthony: It occurred to me that which is abstract would have universal application, as to the concrete being locally or specially defined.

The Fool: If only it was so simple, as simply being in one direction. It seems you moving towards the Aristotelian model of substance.

Perhaps, it appears like that because of the fact that the ideas, are where you are at, that is, in the mind. And so pervade and are extrapolated onto perceptions. But there must be an opposite direction as well. From where we derive new abstract concepts.


On The Hard Concrete

S-Anthony: To demonstrate, I may say I love pizza, my spouse, the moon, or my cat; I may say I hate these things, also; however, pizza is not my spouse and the moon is not my cat.

The Fool: The very relation between language, a symbolic expression, and the things which they express, is an abstract concept. Expression is an abstract concept.

Then, all perception is abstracted and imperceptibility is concrete. As imperceptibility defines perception, could it be that which is concrete gives meaning to that which is abstract?


There is a paradoxical problem, with all such concepts, and this is by the very fact that the two are what distinguish each other, and insofar as they are set, of two, it follows that they share a quality. Which makes them ,"A Set" of two.

In the example above, the words, is a thing, an action, and is only a symbol, and so only has meaning insofar as it does symbolize something else. Therefore, there must be a relation, of the word, to the saying it symbolizes. And that is an abstract relation, that relation must be a part of each entity, the word and that which it symbolizes.

http://onedrive.live.com...
And so a solution, like many philosophical problems, becomes a matter of teasing out how they are alike, and how they are not, but when we focus on a set, as a set, we must of course be looking at it from a third perspective, apart from that set, and posit a third kind of entity, from which we can distinguish that which is under investigation, in this case the classification of concrete and abstract.

Yet, we, too, are abstract and concrete, perceptible and imperceptible. The subject under investigation is the investigator.



Against The Ideologist
And so on and so forth for that distinction and its descendent distinctions.

You have made me think. Thank you. I would like to amend my post and say all thoughts are both abstract and concrete, at once.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:49:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 3:49:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Concrete Abstractions 2

S-Anthony: You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives."

The Fool: Well first and foremost love and hate our emotional based.

Love and hate are both emotional and physical.


Argument for the origination of love and hate:
The proof is simply a thought experiment were we simply conceive of a context, which is void of all emotions. Here is clear, that this such a context, there is no possibility for love or hate to exist, and so we have a necessary condition of love, or hate which is emotions.

Emotions alone give value, to that which is physical; and, that which is physical gives meaning to one's emotions.


And are not emotions feelings of motivation?!? In other words, the act of motivation, and synonymously the sensation of intrinsic motivation.

What I"m saying is that if there were no emotions there would be no reason, and so synonymously no purpose, in anything or to do anything.

And so, a necessary condition, for meaning or purpose is emotions.

For why would there be a need to do one thing over another, if we feel no persuasion for one of the other?

I agree, with you, completely.


On Abstraction
S-Anthony: That which is abstract may be universally defined.

The Fool: One type of abstraction, are generalizations summarized, by our mind from a set of particulars which we may experience, in one way or another. By that I mean, we may experience in the mind, in a dream or by our senses.

Another type of distractions are the type which we project, on to an experience to explain a set of variables.

By reflection, we see the world; and, by projection, we see ourselves.


S-Anthony: However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: The act of dying, is not the act of loving, or hating. And all love and hate is not created equal.

Love and hate are both actions and inactions, both equal and unequal.


"What does hate look like?"

"A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die."

The Fool: Hate doesn"t look like anything. But rather there are visual patterns which are consistent, to contexts where the emotion is inherent in either the perceiver of the context or the participants in the context.

Hate looks like everything and nothing at all. The perception is of the one who perceives; they are divided; yet, they are one.


S-Anthony: However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: Emotionless robots, blowing up the World Trade Center, wouldn"t constitute a hate act, but rather simply robots gone wild.

As you said before, without emotions, all things are dead.


Naked female robots gone wild.
<(8D)

The paradox, I think you"re highlighting, is dissolved, when you recognize that in each case you"ve given, someone is giving and an Unequal balance of moral worth to one group or person as opposed to another. And this unbalanced, is synonymously, and injustice. (Not to be confused with inequity.) Where a general inequity, is not necessarily an injustice.

This emotional unbalance makes life dynamic. If all forces were equal life would remain static.


Against The Ideologist

It is in that very nature where, all love and or hate is not created equal.

Love and hate are both equal and unequal, abstract and concrete, living and dead, active and inactive.


Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 10:21:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 3:49:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Concrete Abstractions 2

S-Anthony: You may ask, "What does love look like?"; and, I may answer, "A mother's nursing her child.", "A father's working hard, to feed his family.", and "A rescue worker's saving lives."

The Fool: Well first and foremost love and hate our emotional based.

Argument for the origination of love and hate:
The proof is simply a thought experiment were we simply conceive of a context, which is void of all emotions. Here is clear, that this such a context, there is no possibility for love or hate to exist, and so we have a necessary condition of love, or hate which is emotions.

And are not emotions feelings of motivation?!? In other words, the act of motivation, and synonymously the sensation of intrinsic motivation.

What I"m saying is that if there were no emotions there would be no reason, and so synonymously no purpose, in anything or to do anything.

And so, a necessary condition, for meaning or purpose is emotions.

For why would there be a need to do one thing over another, if we feel no persuasion for one of the other?

On Abstraction
S-Anthony: That which is abstract may be universally defined.

The Fool: One type of abstraction, are generalizations summarized, by our mind from a set of particulars which we may experience, in one way or another. By that I mean, we may experience in the mind, in a dream or by our senses.

Another type of distractions are the type which we project, on to an experience to explain a set of variables.

S-Anthony: However, love may be a terrorist's dying for his, or her, beliefs, a homeowner's shooting an intruder to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lions' killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: The act of dying, is not the act of loving, or hating. And all love and hate is not created equal.

"What does hate look like?"

"A mother's neglecting her child.", "A father's not feeding his family.", and "A rescue worker's only saving the lives of white people and letting others die."

The Fool: Hate doesn"t look like anything. But rather there are visual patterns which are consistent, to contexts where the emotion is inherent in either the perceiver of the context or the participants in the context.

S-Anthony: However, hate may be a terrorist's blowing up the World Trade Center, while dying for his country, a homeowner's shooting an intruder, to protect his, or her, family, and a pride of lion's killing a gazelle to feed their own.

The Fool: Emotionless robots, blowing up the World Trade Center, wouldn"t constitute a hate act, but rather simply robots gone wild.

Naked female robots gone wild.
<(8D)

The paradox, I think you"re highlighting, is dissolved, when you recognize that in each case you"ve given, someone is giving and an Unequal balance of moral worth to one group or person as opposed to another. And this unbalanced, is synonymously, and injustice. (Not to be confused with inequity.) Where a general inequity, is not necessarily an injustice.

Against The Ideologist

It is in that very nature where, all love and or hate is not created equal.



The home of the party and the trees
Sunny l-land of the Gs, please let a nigga breathe
Tank top top down for the breeze, burnt lips
Got a blunt full of weed, peace love enemies.