Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete. How can this be the case? "they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists." Seems to be saying that man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn't exist. This is so strange that feel like I'm missing something.
The fallacy of pure self-reference occurs when a concept or statement is asserted as referring exclusively to its own object-less referring Example: This statement is true It originates with Dr. Harry Binswanger The problem I see with this fallacy is it seems to not be universally ture. "This sentence has exactly six words" is true while also only referring to itself. I think the key to my misunderstanding of it is the part about "its own objectless referring". However im unsure, is the fallacy of pure self reference actually a thing?