As usual, your views are so narrow, shallow and dogmatic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:34 pm Just the first online definitions I found.
ADJECTIVE
[ˈabstrakt]
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
[əbˈstrakʃ(ə)n]
NOUN
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events:
Notice - the bollocks about abstract things and abstraction is built into the words. Things are supposed to exist in thought or as ideas, which are not physical things. Or, shifting deckchairs on the Titanic, abstract things are 'concepts' - as though those are any less fictional or more serious than ideas.
Witness, to paraphrase: 'the noun phrase features of reality expresses an abstraction'. Wtf does that mean? Does the NP dog express a dog? And is 'dog' an abstraction?
We use the word dog, which is a real, physical thing, to talk about real, physical things. And when we do so, the linguistic operation is a real, physical process. So where is any of that abstract?
That's mystical nonsense, and always has been.
Note the wider range of meanings from the dictionary [google]:
- adjective: abstract
/ˈabstrakt/
1a. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
1b. dealing with ideas rather than events.
"the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention"
1c. not based on a particular instance; theoretical.
"we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner"
(of a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object.
Very often, dictionary will also give a meaning in the 'philosophical' sense, but not specifically indicated in this case.
Note: meaning 1c. not based on a particular instance; theoretical. give us a clue to what is 'abstract' or 'abstract' object in the philosophical sense.
Within the philosophical sense, there are many alternative contentious perspectives to 'what is abstract'.
As I had argued your [& realists'] philosophical sense of 'abstract' object is grounded on illusion.
When biologists refer to 'dog' whilst generally accepted as 'concrete' it is ULTIMATELY in the abstract sense or in the universal sense. There is no way biologists or the common man can ever identify the particular 'real dog' with its specific particular features which are always changing every nano-second.
Thus the most optimal and convenient sense is scientists [and all] rely on the abstract object rather than on the problematic 'real' particular.
Realists will dogmatically insist 'dog' is "concrete" based on the narrower dictionary meaning and their ideological realism, i.e. mind-independence. However, what is claimed to be 'concrete' is actually "abstract" when deliberated from a more nuanced, refined, meta- level.
So my point is, it is not irrational to accept the concept of 'abstract objects' as real [FSRK] from the proper philosophical perspective, i.e. from the meta-level.