Talk:Abstract and concrete

Relevant to the usage of the words in philosophy?
Merely a point for consideration... I'm not sure if the following provides a clear illustration of the distinction between concrete and abstract from a philosophical view although it provides one from a language usage point.

Concrete and abstract thinking
Piaget uses the terms "concrete" and "formal" to describe the different types of learning. Concrete thinking involves facts and descriptions about everyday, tangible objects, while abstract (formal operational) thinking involves a mental process. The transition to abstract thinking is not inevitable. About 30% of teenagers naturally make the shift without help. While there are a range of approaches which can help pupils with ordinary learning, to assist with the concrete/abstract transition the learner has to be presented with a problem which cannot be solved without abstract thinking and then be assisted to construct the concept for themselves.

Abstraxt-concrete
‘Abstract’ or ‘abstract truth’ is a certain type of truth which exists in the same way as any other truth located in the memory and it can be called, by motivated observer, to existence in the ‘now’. Every truth is motivation which is organized by the laws of nature and it exists as much as the units in the material space time such as matter, electromagnetism or gravity. A unit of matter occupying a limited magnitude of space has a reflection in the immaterial space time where it is ‘concrete truth’. This can be observed with the immaterial senses and it can act as the cause or it can be the effect. Electromagnetism and gravity can be ‘concrete truth’ only when they are organized and contained in a limited magnitude of space. As unorganized energy electromagnetism and gravity are ‘abstract truths’. There is a difference between ‘concrete truth’ and ‘abstract truth’. The first is organization resulting from differentiation of velocity of rotation of gravitons in a closed space. ‘Concrete truth’ can be copied in the material space. ‘Abstract truth’ does not have organization but it motivates as the rotation of immaterial gravitons without spatial limit. The lack of limitation of energy in space makes interaction with the immaterial senses impossible and the truth cannot be copied in the material space. KK (78.147.247.205 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)).

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?
Should redirect for "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?


 * (See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -
 * ''"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:
 * ''Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]
 * Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."


 * I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
 * There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
 * According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."
 * Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.

I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence.

Discussion is here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Concrete?
I think this article is quite confused. For instance: it claims that "tennis" is abstract while "a tennis game" is concrete. I beg to differ: while "a tennis game" is perhaps less abstract (more concrete), it is certainly NOT concrete. The first game between Riggs and King on Sept 20, 1973 IS concrete (having BOTH time and place). (I here ignore the likely ambiguity between a tennis game and a tennis match.) Actually ALL of the "concrete" examples are NOT CONCRETE. This is really absurd. I mean literally absurd. Here are some concrete examples: the red coloring of the apples in my kitchen (now), the 5 fingers on my right hand, OJ Simpson's murder trial (including investigation and verdict), and you and your family. (note that these are more or less well defined.)173.189.78.173 (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from Abstract detail
I just created a redirect here from the page Abstract detail. There is no material to merge really as that page consisted of text copied verbatim from a single source, however I will leave this link here incase you guys can find any useful material to incorporate into this article. https://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/luwice.m/2015/03/10/abstract-detail/ Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

further clarification
Both abstract and concrete are adjectives indicating properties. Properties are the product of abstraction, a mental operation just as concretisation resulting in a label concrete. How do you know it is a mental operation? Well, the tautology of natural languages requires and says so. The result of abstracting is abstraction. (Abstraction on the other hand is a property).Now in the course of abstracting you examine an object in terms of its properties, especially if it is determined (definite), countable and tangible. If it is, then the object is concrete. If it fails the test, it is abstract. All the examples above and overleaf are false. It is very easy to see why. On the other hand you use abstract terms when you are not knowledgeable enough to use concrete terms. As scientific enquiry progresses new words are given to new findings, some of them abstract, some of them concrete. The overuse of abtract words is not only a nuisance, but direct cheating on us all. Now the three properties of being abstract, namely tangible, determined (definite) and countable are derived from three relations (actions, verbs), namely touching, pointing and counting, the three basic components of enquiry and knowledge acquisition. Thus in contrast to sloppy curiosity, scientific method of study relies on proofs, facts and sometimse on theories that must be falsified in terms of perception, the use of your senses. And that is exactly how the properties of tangible, definite and countable are emerging. The simplest road to knowledge is alternating between the use of abstract and concrete approaches to what we want to learn. But you cannot dwell on being abstract, sooner or later you must return to concrete reasoning, or become a poet or a fiction writer.There are a number of abstract terms used in describing reality and experience, such as form and content, quality and quantity, generic and specific, function and structure, all related to abstract and concrete objects. Abstract objects seem to be bigger than concrete objects, hence you can measure the abstract by using concrete units of measures, which are smaller as default. Rabbiplus (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)