"Only Concretes Exist"

[djames27]

I am new to Objectivism and I have a question regarding the nature of abstractions.

A religious conservative I converse with has stated that Ayn Rand's philosophy denies universals because it denies the existence of abstractions. This person asserts that under Objectivism only concretes exist therefore mental abstractions can't exist and therefore Objectivism makes things like morality, objectivity and goodness impossible. This conservative is essentially arguing that Objectivism is a materialist philosophy.

First, did Ayn Rand ever argue that only concretes exist? That sounds sloppy and Ayn Rand was never sloppy. Second, what exactly is the ontological status of thoughts, abstractions, concepts and even consciousness itself under Objectivism. What is the best way to think of the existence of these things.

[TheEgoist]

I am new to Objectivism and I have a question regarding the nature of abstractions.

A religious conservative I converse with has stated that Ayn Rand's philosophy denies universals because it denies the existence of abstractions. This person asserts that under Objectivism only concretes exist therefore mental abstractions can't exist and therefore Objectivism makes things like morality, objectivity and goodness impossible. This conservative is essentially arguing that Objectivism is a materialist philosophy.

First, did Ayn Rand ever argue that only concretes exist? That sounds sloppy and Ayn Rand was never sloppy. Second, what exactly is the ontological status of thoughts, abstractions, concepts and even consciousness itself under Objectivism. What is the best way to think of the existence of these things.

This is most likely an outright lie by this man, as it directly contradicts ALL of Rand's epistemology. She is a fierce defender of abstraction and universals. I suggest you stop speaking with such a liar, or quickly go buy him and yourself a copy of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

Rand is by no means a nominalist. However, she's also not a realist or platonist, at least not in the orthodox sense.

As for the ontological status; thoughts, abstractions, concepts are mental units. What Rand does say, and here is where a possible confusion is, that all concepts and abstractions must have a concrete basis and for concepts, a reasonable justification for it. For example, we would not form a single concept for "Caucasian women who are 5'10, 125lbs and in their mid-twenties going to school for theoretical physics"(Perhaps that would be 'woman I want to date'? )

Edited January 19, 2010 by TheEgoist

[EC]

Concretes are all that exist metaphysically. There are no "perfect" circles that exist in reality just certain actual circles. He shouldn't take that to mean the abstract concept of a circle doesn't exist metaphysically but it does exist in one's mind as an abstract concept that's concretes are actual metaphysical circles.

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

“The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” The Romantic Manifesto, 23.

Edited January 19, 2010 by EC

[softwareNerd]

I guess one should first clarify what the OP and his friend mean by concretes. For instance, is "car" a concrete, the way the OP is using it, or are only specific instances of cars concrete?

Edited January 19, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Plasmatic]

This one of the few inconsistencies Ive found in her writings. I'm at dinner right now but when I get home I'll supply the relevent quotes to demonstrate what I'm saying. She does qualify in the surrounding text the differences but still used "exist" inconsistently.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Just read ECs post and it quotes one of the relevent passages and his response repeats the same inconsitent usage of "exist". Abstractions are mental existents.

[Grames]

Abstractions and Concretes

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

“The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” The Romantic Manifesto, 23.

The quote refers to abstractions as such. Ayn Rand denies universals are actual physical entities, because they are not physical or metaphysical but epistemological. The alternative is Platonic Idealism, the idea that there are perfect forms of the abstractions floating around somewhere, manifested in some particular concrete form in some other dimension. But universals are not concretes in any dimension.

Tell your religious conservative friend that any system of belief that holds abstractions like morality, objectivity and goodness are tangible metaphysical objects is essentially pagan due to its susceptibility to idol worship. Don't be a primitive pagan.

The "ontological status of thoughts, abstractions, concepts and even consciousness itself under Objectivism" are relationships between material things. Ontologically, matter (leaving aside energy and the rest of physics) is all that exists. Thoughts, abstractions, concepts and consciousness exist as the relationships between material things: your brain and the rest of existence. They exist in your head in some physical form, but no one can interact with them on that basis (except to destroy them by destroying you).

[Plasmatic]

Grames his question was not about if abstractions were entites but rather existents.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

leaving aside energy and the rest of physics

This is directly related to this exact distinction and its causative repercussions. One day Id like to "go there".

Edited January 19, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Just realized his second question does merit your response! Sorry bro.

[Grames]

This is directly related to this exact distinction and it causative repercussions. One day Id like to "go there".

"Concretes" means particular specific things that exist as opposed to a class or form, i.e. it means entities. And I did answer the ontological question as well.

edit: Plas, working on your post count?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Grames

[Plasmatic]

"Concretes" means particular specific things that exist as opposed to a class or form, i.e. it means entities. And I did answer the ontological question as well.

See above

[A is A]

I am new to Objectivism and I have a question regarding the nature of abstractions.

A religious conservative I converse with has stated that Ayn Rand's philosophy denies universals because it denies the existence of abstractions. This person asserts that under Objectivism only concretes exist therefore mental abstractions can't exist and therefore Objectivism makes things like morality, objectivity and goodness impossible. This conservative is essentially arguing that Objectivism is a materialist philosophy.

First, did Ayn Rand ever argue that only concretes exist? That sounds sloppy and Ayn Rand was never sloppy. Second, what exactly is the ontological status of thoughts, abstractions, concepts and even consciousness itself under Objectivism. What is the best way to think of the existence of these things.

"What does 'concrete' mean in Objectivism?" should be your first question. At a basic level, a concrete is that which is directly perceiveable. It is the specific, individual instances of any object subsumed by a concept. "This Honda" and "that Volvo" are concete instances of the concept "car". Where did Rand use that expression in her published writings? The only place I could find is

It is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man's mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.

Aristotle regarded "essence" as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.

She was using it in the context of properly forming definitions and concept formation. So metaphysical implications are invalid. "Only conretes exist" distinguishes Objectivism from other philosophies that hold that abstractions exist (have physical, perceptual reality) in any metaphysical sense. The real issue is epistemological.

[DavidOdden]

This person you're dealing with has a very slightly informed but mostly wrong understanding of Objectivism. He apparently learned a tiny bit about how Objectivism rejects the so-called "problem of universals", and then he completely misunderstood everything else, thinking that it rejects abstractions. It also sounds like he confused "existent" and "entity".

[kainscalia]

Take him throuh a stroll of "introduction to objectivist epistemology" and see how he substantiates his claims.