The Concept of the Abstract Object: Abstract Versus Concrete Objects

Contemporary philosophers and freelance writers play with words in terms of objects, often attempting to understand abstract concepts as concrete objects, and turning concrete objects into abstract concepts. 

The article, "Abstract Objects" suggests that “it is widely supposed that every entity falls into one of two categories: Some are concrete; the rest abstract” and that “we may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to intuition.”

There is no doubt that there are concrete objects.

For example, a rock has form, which can be changed by a sculptor like Michael Angelo. At the same time, there is the abstract concept of a rock sculpture, which may depict strength. For example, a photograph of a Michael Angelo statue of David can depict his human strength.   

The concept of the abstract object is primarily subjective.

In other words, the concrete-abstract classification of any object is problematic and limited by human subjectivity. Part of the difficulty with the concept of the abstract object is the reality that human subjectivity varies from individual to individual, leading to the conclusion that any entity can become a number of different abstract objects in terms of conceptualization. This depends upon who sees or interprets it. 

When a concrete object has meaning, significance or symbolism, it can take on a vast scope of abstract object possibilities. In other words, a concrete object like the statue of David, is also an abstract object symbolizing the strength of a man, a family, a community, a country or humanity in general. Concrete objects like a rock are restricted to form, structure and other scientific properties, while abstract concepts like the strength perceived in a sculpture of David, created from a rock cannot be limited in scope, meaning or significance.

What does that mean for philosophers and writers?

Western culture tends to comprehend objects scientifically in terms of concrete form (although not always), in opposition to Eastern thought which continually expands its horizon into the abstract object realm. Perhaps part of the reason for this is the age of the culture itself. The older a culture, the more likely there is to be abstract object conceptualization, as opposed to concrete object conceptualization.

At the same time, a rock remains a rock, a reality that is irrefutable. Philosophers and writers tend to change concrete objects into abstract objects, an indisputable reality.

Who is right?

Both perspectives have merit and may be defended within their own context. When the context is inappropriate, then questions, as well as disputes may arise. Every object is subject to concrete, as well as abstract analysis, at one time or another.