102,819
edits
Changes
Created page with "File:lighterstill.jpgright|frame ==Origin== late [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGL..."
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Transparent_concrete.jpg|right|frame]]
==Origin==
late [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGLISH_PERIOD Middle English] (in the sense ‘formed by [[cohesion]], solidified’): from French ''concret'' or Latin ''concretus'', past participle of ''concrescere'' ‘[[grow]] [[together]].’ Early use was also as a grammatical term designating a [[quality]] belonging to a substance (usually [[expressed]] by an adjective such as white in white paper) as opposed to the quality itself (expressed by an [[abstract]] noun such as whiteness); later concrete came to be used to refer to nouns embodying [[attributes]] (e.g., [[fool]], [[hero]]), as opposed to the attributes themselves (e.g., foolishness, heroism), and this is the basis of the modern use as the opposite of ‘[[abstract]]’ The noun sense ‘[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete building material]’ dates from the mid 19th cent.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_century 14th Century]
==Definitions==
*1:existing in a [[material]] or [[physical]] form; real or solid; not [[abstract]]: concrete objects like stones | it exists as a physically concrete form.
*2: specific; definite: I haven't got any concrete [[proof]].
*3: (of a noun) denoting a material object as opposed to an [[abstract]] [[quality]], [[state]], or [[action]].
==Description==
[[Abstract]] and '''concrete''' are [[classifications]] that denote whether a term describes an object with a [[physical]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent referent] or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in [[philosophy]] and [[semantics]]. Abstract objects are sometimes called ''abstracta'' (sing. ''abstractum'') and concrete objects are sometimes called ''concreta'' (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular [[time]] or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e. an [[idea]], or abstraction. The term 'abstract object' is said to have been coined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine Willard Van Orman Quine]. The study of abstract objects is called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory abstract object theory].
[[Abstract]] objects have often garnered the interest of philosophers because they raise [[problems]] for popular [[theories]]. In [[ontology]], abstract objects are considered problematic for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism physicalism] and some forms of [[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Zalta Edward Zalta] and arguably, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato] in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms 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 especially suited to answering these latter [[questions]].
==See also==
*'''''[[Abstract]]'''''
[[Category: Philosophy]]
==Origin==
late [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGLISH_PERIOD Middle English] (in the sense ‘formed by [[cohesion]], solidified’): from French ''concret'' or Latin ''concretus'', past participle of ''concrescere'' ‘[[grow]] [[together]].’ Early use was also as a grammatical term designating a [[quality]] belonging to a substance (usually [[expressed]] by an adjective such as white in white paper) as opposed to the quality itself (expressed by an [[abstract]] noun such as whiteness); later concrete came to be used to refer to nouns embodying [[attributes]] (e.g., [[fool]], [[hero]]), as opposed to the attributes themselves (e.g., foolishness, heroism), and this is the basis of the modern use as the opposite of ‘[[abstract]]’ The noun sense ‘[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete building material]’ dates from the mid 19th cent.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_century 14th Century]
==Definitions==
*1:existing in a [[material]] or [[physical]] form; real or solid; not [[abstract]]: concrete objects like stones | it exists as a physically concrete form.
*2: specific; definite: I haven't got any concrete [[proof]].
*3: (of a noun) denoting a material object as opposed to an [[abstract]] [[quality]], [[state]], or [[action]].
==Description==
[[Abstract]] and '''concrete''' are [[classifications]] that denote whether a term describes an object with a [[physical]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent referent] or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in [[philosophy]] and [[semantics]]. Abstract objects are sometimes called ''abstracta'' (sing. ''abstractum'') and concrete objects are sometimes called ''concreta'' (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular [[time]] or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e. an [[idea]], or abstraction. The term 'abstract object' is said to have been coined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine Willard Van Orman Quine]. The study of abstract objects is called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory abstract object theory].
[[Abstract]] objects have often garnered the interest of philosophers because they raise [[problems]] for popular [[theories]]. In [[ontology]], abstract objects are considered problematic for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism physicalism] and some forms of [[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Zalta Edward Zalta] and arguably, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato] in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms 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 especially suited to answering these latter [[questions]].
==See also==
*'''''[[Abstract]]'''''
[[Category: Philosophy]]