Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Abstract Objects

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Abstract Objects

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is in aesthetics because certain abstract objects seem like an ideal sort of "sculpture" to me. Math is written in symbols, and these symbols are made of ink, etc., but the symbols seem like the minimum concession necessarily to externalize what is as close to pure abstraction as possible. I make exceptions for philosophical concepts like Being, and other totalizing concepts.

But math has the advantage of being dynamic. These little thought machines can move, evolve, etc. I love the sigma symbol, the instruction/algorithm to sum up numbers according to a precise but variable rule. Algorithms connect to algorithms. e is defined by a non-terminating algorithm. So is pi, which Archimedes approximated using polygons with 96 sides. We can give you all the precision you want, with the exception of perfect precision. Strange.

@Reconstructo,

Here's another abstract object. The number e. (1 + 1/n)^n...as n tends to infinity. Ideal compound interest. Growth of bacteria. It's inverse is the decay of radioactive material. (Half-life). And that's just the tip of the berg. This number and another abstract object (pi) are tied together in a strange way. But that's another thread. The point is that these two abstract objects can be said to surround us....keys to a "hidden" structure. (Hidden because we don't look, and it's not obvious....)

@Reconstructo,

I laways liked the infinity sign,
it is a crossroads in zero,
nothing twisted creates everything.
Circle abstraction.
Road map of existance.
Everything will come to begin and end again.
The infinity sign even gives the design of life and death.
Everything will eventually meet its self.

@Reconstructo,

No objects are actually abstract... To know them we must abstract them, and this is to form an idea of them... You were probably looking for a better word...

@Fido,

Fido;153054 wrote:

No objects are actually abstract... To know them we must abstract them, and this is to form an idea of them... You were probably looking for a better word...

I see why you would say that. I suppose a counterpoint would be this: an object is yanked out (abstracted) from its surroundings by means of concept. So even an object like a tree is abstract, as concept is itself abstraction. The tree is only separate from everything else because we humans like to see it that way. But we can then zoom out and think in terms of ecosystems, or zoom in and see cells or molecules. It's a matter of which unity we want to consider. All of these unities/concepts are sensations (and other concepts/abstractions) organized mentally, and named. What is treeness? What is justice? The first question is easier than the second, but both are abstractions...from my perspective.

"No finite thing has genuine being." I think this line points to my conception of conception.

Ab-stract (pull-out). Ob-ject (thrown-before). Looking at this rough etymology, it seems that we are dealing with the same thing, except the object is "thrown" at us, as if it were an automatic abstraction, one that we do not recognize as an abstraction. In the case of numbers or ethical words, it's more obvious. Opinions of the moment.

@Reconstructo,

I should stress that I think everyday (less abstract) objects like chairs are sensation experienced conceptually. To call an object more abstract is just to emphasize that it is less sensual. If a caveman draws a bison on his cave wall, is he drawing a particular bison or bison-in-general? When we see these everyday objects we are not just experiencing sensation but also a sort of "frame." We understand these objects as unities. To cut the sensation of a cup into the concept cup, we are simultaneously and automatically seeing what's around this cup as non-cup or not-cup. This is why synthesis and negation are the same damn thing. But I think it's better to symbolize synthesis (concept) with a minus sign, as the inferred raw sensation is the positive content which is framed by such negations.

Philosophy is a "tarrying with the negative" or a process and progress of abstraction. Philosophy is an error that negates itself, within "time," into "truth." And "truth" is just a thesis for which there is no antithesis, as enough antitheses have been integrated that no more valid ones exist. "Truth" is a pile of determinate negations. Or better yet: truth is the "self"-"consciousness" of a pile of determinate negations. ("self" and "consciousness" are themselves members of this negation-pile. "self" and "consciousness" are bullsh*t.)

Passionate opinions from yours truly. :Glasses:

@Reconstructo,

No art would be possible without conception... We conceive of all reality spiritually... We do not carry the thing with us, but its essence, and we can see this represented on the wall of caves, for we can represent that which we can conceive.

@Reconstructo,

Do love exist only as abstract things?

@Wisdom Seeker,

Wisdom Seeker;153977 wrote:

Do love exist only as abstract things?

Love does exist so, as a certain meaning unique to each person...

@Fido,

Fido;153918 wrote:

No art would be possible without conception... We conceive of all reality spiritually... We do not carry the thing with us, but its essence, and we can see this represented on the wall of caves, for we can represent that which we can conceive.

I agree. And that's why it interests me. Essence, and the essence of essence. Essence squared? Essence's square root? The form of form. What do abstract objects have in common?

Oh, but I have a theory bout that.

@Reconstructo,

Nice quote. Up up and away.......

Quote:

"The real numbers are the dependable breadwinner of the family, the complete ordered field we all rely on. The complex numbers are a slightly flashier but still respectable younger brother: not ordered, but algebraically complete. The quaternions, being noncommutative, are the eccentric cousin who is shunned at important family gatherings. But the octonions are the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic: they are nonassociative." John Baez

@Fido,

Fido;154019 wrote:

Love does exist so, as a certain meaning unique to each person...

Therefore, if someone tells me that Romeo loved Juliet, that means something entirely different from Abelard loved Heloise? Why is the same word used then?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156130 wrote:

Therefore, if someone tells me that Romeo loved Juliet, that means something entirely different from Abelard loved Heloise? Why is the same word used then?

Obviously yes, since moral forms can in no sense be verified it is merely presumption to say they are the same... A dog as a physical form can be verified, but love cannot, and that is the problem across the board with moral forms... We can never be sure we are talking about the same thing using the same word unless we do a lot of checking...

Besides that, we can never say fictional characters feel anything...

@Fido,

Fido;156140 wrote:

Obviously yes, since moral forms can in no sense be verified it is merely presumption to say they are the same... A dog as a physical form can be verified, but love cannot, and that is the problem across the board with moral forms... We can never be sure we are talking about the same thing using the same word unless we do a lot of checking...

Besides that, we can never say fictional characters feel anything...

I agree with all of this. I suppose there is one difficulty with the last line. When we read history, for instance, it's only our faith in its accuracy that distinguishes it from fiction.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;163106 wrote:

I agree with all of this. I suppose there is one difficulty with the last line. When we read history, for instance, it's only our faith in its accuracy that distinguishes it from fiction.

Math is full of fiction... The greatest fiction in abstraction is that One is One... We count a field of sheep; and each sheep is one, and yet no sheep is like another, or rather, the equal of another as we would say, 1=1...What then are we adding besides qualities when math should only recognize quantities...

With that said; history is a ficition, but a fiction that works toward a greater accuracy than most fiction... If you told only what could be directly verified there would not be much to tell; and if you gave only the facts, no one would read it...We know very little about many of the great personalities of history... It is too bad that people did not know in advance who were to be the big players in history, or they would pay more attention...It is like Little Adolph Hitler... It is amazing the number of times he shows up in old films, stepping out of line, getting right in the lense of history, waiting for his time to arrive... He at least had a sense of his destiny... Much like Nietzsche... He knew he was going to be picked up and not set down... He just went crazy with waiting to be noticed...

@Fido,

Fido;163113 wrote:

Math is full of fiction... The greatest fiction in abstraction is that One is One... We count a field of sheep; and each sheep is one, and yet no sheep is like another, or rather, the equal of another as we would say, 1=1...What then are we adding besides qualities when math should only recognize quantities...
.

I agree. That is a great fiction. But this applies not only to math but to all abstraction, all generalization! Smile

And yet we would be screwed without it, and incapable of learning. It should be noted that some mathematicians pride themselves of divorcing number from reality. And yet the equations they discover/invent can be re-applied by those with more practical intentions. Non-euclidean geometry was created before Einstein, having been created for "artistic" ("pure") reasons. And yet it was quickly used to understand "reality."

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 04:59 PM ----------

Fido;163113 wrote:

With that said; history is a ficition, but a fiction that works toward a greater accuracy than most fiction... If you told only what could be directly verified there would not be much to tell; and if you gave only the facts, no one would read it...

Well said. This reminds me of Aristotle on plots. In some cases, perhaps fiction can say more than history concerning human nature. But as you say, history is part-fiction. I find it valuable, and don't intent to attack it. I'm merely fascinated by the difference between fiction and nonfiction, and it seems to be a smaller difference than is normally considered.

How many human beings have imitated literary or movie characters? And by doing so they are in a way incarnating fiction, making fiction real. And perhaps as we try to improve ourselves we incarnate the "fiction" of what we could be, already vague present in our minds, as non-spatial-being.

Then of course there is the problem of interpretation. One book and 10 readers is in some ways 10 books.

There's a picture on Google of Hitler and Wittgenstein in a class photo together. Hitler looks like a little smart ass.:Glasses:

@Reconstructo,

I am currently working on something called the 'Naked Language' or 'Naked Symbology' I think this thread has a lot to do with it.
Just a heads up, but do you think the term 'Naked Language' could have anything to do with 'Abstract Objects'.
It has a lot to do with what the mind conjures for its self with out any help form the intellect.
It may have something to do with wisdom but I have not come to that yet.
Which is why I want to change the title of this thread to 'Abstractive Objective' or 'The Abstract Symbol'.
Because it has more to do with the seer than the seen.
Sorry Reconstructo just wandering around with my thoughts.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;163131 wrote:

I am currently working on something called the 'Naked Language' or 'Naked Symbology' I think this thread has a lot to do with it.
Just a heads up, but do you think the term 'Naked Language' could have anything to do with 'Abstract Objects'.
It has a lot to do with what the mind conjures for its self with out any help form the intellect.
It may have something to do with wisdom but I have not come to that yet.
Which is why I want to change the title of this thread to 'Abstractive Objective' or 'The Abstract Symbol'.
Because it has more to do with the seer than the seen.
Sorry Reconstructo just wandering around with my thoughts.

For me, objects are unified into objects by means of thought, so I can't help but attach "abstract objects" to the intellect. I 'm interested in conceptions like justice, or the number 72, or truth, etc. And also the relation of this kind of object to cats, chairs, clouds, etc. It's my view that objects are bundles, if you will, held together in a strange way and tagged with a name, or at least a symbol.

I do think it relates to "naked language" as my intention, at least, is to study not only the nature of language but also of thought, and I think thought and language are closely related, if not the same beast.

As to the seer and the seen, I sometimes wonder if this distinction is useful but nonetheless questionable. The "seer" is a great example of an abstract object. What is the "subject"? What is the "self"? An abstraction. A unity of various "lesser" concepts. Or so it seems to me.

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Abstract Objects

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Abstract Objects

Quick Links

My Account

able2know