In O'ism is there a third form of existence?

[Guest heusdens]

Acc. to Objectivism, that what is primary is existence. This seems to be some tautology, and we mught still want to know what this existence entails.

Materialism is on this subject clearer, as that it conceives that the material is primary. Consciousness is a secondary feature of the material, an emergent property of matter organised in a specific life form.

Existence includes all material forms of existence. What other things exist, which are neither material themselves, nor features of consciousness?

Is there, acc. to Objectivism, some third form of existence, which is neither material nor a feature of consciousness?

Some platonic world of universals perhaps, that exist independed of both matter and consciousness?

[RadCap]

Two of the three posts you have made on this forum so far relate to essentially the same issue (though they were posted in separate threads). This indicates a decided interest in what you claim you have not studied in-depth: Objectivist metaphysics. Instead of trying to grasp that branch of philosophy merely by snippets, I suggest a reading of:

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff

The first few chapters address your questions, as well as provides a foundation for understanding the objectivist metaphysics - a foundation you simply cannot get on a forum.

If you do not wish to purchase the book, it should be available through your local library.

[Guest heusdens]

RadCap, well thanks for the advice of reading the metaphysics of Objectivism, I will sure try to get a copy of it. Objectivism makes some philosophical claims, for instance it claims that not all existence is material. It is that part that is rather inconvincing, and while it is the case, I haven't read and studied Objectivism in depth, the same can be said I think about Materialism, not being studied in depth by (most) Objectivist. To state anything about such metaphysical claims, and to be able to point out in which way Objectivism agrees or disagrees with Materialism regarding the issue of the primacy of matter (existence), it should be noted that one needs to study both positions.

In one way, Objectivism seems to disagree with Materialism regarding this issue. Objectivism just claims that existence is primary (existence exists). But such a position is rather tautologial, although it just expresses the fact that non-existence is not. Materialism does not disagree with that, although it specifically adds to that that every form of existence is ultimately arrived from matter (the concept of matter in materialism is the broad recognition of everything that exists apart from, outside and independend of consciousness) in eternal motion (change/transformation, etc) in space and time. Materialism treats consciousness as the properties of matter in special structural organization. Within consciousnes there can be acknowledged seperate entities (mental abstractions).

But since consciousness itself is derived from the material, materialism thus concludes that the material is primary.

If such a conclusion is not entirely agreed upon by Objectivism, then what can there exist, acc. to Objectivism, that would be independend of matter itself.

Since Objectivism agrees on the fact that consciousness is a secondary feature of matter, what would there exist apart from matter?

If none so is considered within Objectivism, then it could be said that Objectivism and Materialism fully agree on that issue, but rather use different terms. I.e. "existence" concept in Objectivism, is the same as "matter" in materialism.

If that is not the case, then where do they disagree?

[RadCap]

Heu

As I stated, the answers you seek are to be found in the book I recommended. Since you obviously come from a different philosophic perspective, there is absolutely NO way we can teach you a new philosophy on this forum. It is simply not possible. As such, I suggest you hold your questions until you are much more informed on the topic.

That said, I will say two things about your post.

First: the statement "Existence exists" is not a tautological statement - ie it is not a NEEDLESS repetition of the same concept in different words. "Existence" describes a group of things, specifically ALL things. "Exists" describes the state of those things - specifically that they ARE (as opposed to are NOT). The two do NOT mean the same thing. For instance, I can describe a thing - say unicorns, or flying pigs. However, merely describing them does not mean that they actually exist. They do not exist. Thus, just as the statements "Unicorns don't exist" or "Horses exist" are NOT tautlogical - they are NOT repetitions of the same ideas in different words - so too is "Existence exists" not tautological. That statement is a NECESSARY identification of the SPECIFIC state of a thing or things. Claiming the two words mean the same thing ignores the DIFFERENT function each word serves - the different concept each represents.

Furthermore, the statement "Existence exists" stands in opposition to another philosophic premise - that existence does NOT exist. This other premise considers existence to be merely a mental construct - something created in and by consciousnesss. These are identified as Primacy of Consciousness philosophies.

Second: you state "[Objectivism] claims that not all existence is material. It is that part that is rather inconvincing"

Since this seems to be the foundation of your contention with Objectivism, perhaps you could provide some quotes which support your assertion about Objectivism. If you provide us with such quotes and name the source material, perhaps we can explain it to you in the context it was given.

[Guest heusdens]

Since my source of information o the philosophy of Objectivism is solely sources found on the internet, at this moment I can not go in depth on this issue. I will get a copy of a book that explains objectivism.

For the state being, just some remarks.

1. Existence. You state it is not tautological to say "existence exists". But in the word "existence" (meaning the total category of all things that exist) we have already expressed the fact that they exist. It does not explain to us as yet of what that existence in primary instance entails, i.e. it seems to not express where it stands towards the philosophical issue of what is primary, consciousness or matter.

2. Primacy of Consciousness vs. Primacy of Matter. The original philosophical issue is about wether consciousness is primary (Idealism) or matter (Materialism). Now, objectivism enters the philosophical debate some centuries later, and they redefine the issue as primacy of consciousness vs primacy of existence. The point is of course that conscioussness exists, so if we declare the "existence exists" is seems we do not make a stance as to what is primary, consciousness or matter.

So, my point is, that it seems to me - from what my present knowledge of objectivism is - that in a way Objectivism undefines this whole issue which has been a highly debated philosophical issue over centuries, and seems to take no point of view in this debate, although arguments raised by Objectivism do take a point of view against primacy of consciousness (Idealism), while at the other side, not taking a position of primacy of matter (Materialism).

I.e. Objectivism does commit to the point of view that without material existence, there can not be consciouss existence either. This is the same position as Materialism. Nevertheless, Objectivism declares that it's philosophical position is not to be compared with Materialism, and that Objectivism should not be classified as Materialism, but holds it's own seperate category.

Why would on reject the philosophical position of Materialism, and at the same time develop a philosophy that more or less takes the same position in the philosophical debate as Materialism. Should Objectivism be considered as a mere replacement of Materialism?

Just some thoughts on this.

[Guest heusdens]

RadCap,

Perhaps I can explain the difference between the position of Objectivism and that of Materialism best using some references to philosophical texts of both Hegel and Marx.

First, as the Objectivist position is concerned, the statement as that "existence exists" and "non-existence does not exist", at some points understands this as a total seperateness of being (existence) and nothing (non-existence).

What is meant with this, I can explain with the use of some texts from Hegel, who makes the interesting remarkt that:

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth.

From:

Hegel

Science of Logic

Volume One: The Objective Logic

Book I.

The Doctrine of Being. Section One. Determinateness (Quality)

Remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the beginning

Second, the position that "existence exists" and "non-existence does not exist" clings not only to the supposed seperatedness of being and nothing (existence and non-existence), but also does not in any way express objective being. Man is a natural, objective being. "Existence" however, does not express any form of objective being, as can be understood from the following fragment, which criticizes the philosophy of Hegel in general:

As to (2): The alienation of self-consciousness posits thinghood. Because man equals self-consciousness, his alienated, objective essence, or thinghood, equals alienated self-consciousness, and thinghood is thus posited through this alienation (thinghood being that which is an object for man and an object for him is really only that which is to him an essential object, therefore his objective essence. And since it is not real man, nor therefore nature — man being human nature — who as such is made the subject, but only the abstraction of man, self-consciousness, so thinghood cannot be anything but alienated self-consciousness). It is only to be expected that a living, natural being equipped and endowed with objective (i.e., material) essential powers should of his essence have real natural objects; and that his self-alienation should lead to the positing of a real, objective world, but within the framework of externality, and, therefore, an overwhelming world not belonging to his own essential being. There is nothing incomprehensible or mysterious in this. It would be mysterious, rather, if it were otherwise. But it is equally clear that a self-consciousness by its alienation can posit only thinghood, i.e., only an abstract thing, a thing of abstraction and not a real thing. [50] It is clear, further, that thinghood is therefore utterly without any independence, any essentiality vis-á-vis self-consciousness; that on the contrary it is a mere creature — something posited by self-consciousness. And what is posited, instead of confirming itself, is but confirmation of the act of positing which for a moment fixes its energy as the product, and gives it the semblance — but only for a moment — of an independent, real substance.

Whenever real, corporeal man, man with his feet firmly on the solid ground, man exhaling and inhaling all the forces of nature, posits his real, objective essential powers as alien objects by his externalisation, it is not the act of positing which is the subject in this process: it is the subjectivity of objective essential powers, whose action, therefore, must also be something objective. An objective being acts objectively, and he would not act objectively if the objective did not reside in the very nature of his being. He only creates or posits objects, because he is posited by objects — because at bottom he is nature. In the act of positing, therefore, this objective being does not fall from his state of “pure activity” into a creating of the object; on the contrary, his objective product only confirms his objective activity, his activity as the activity of an objective, natural being.

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both. We see also how only naturalism is capable of comprehending the action of world history.

<Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers — he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities — as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs — essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects. To be objective, natural and sensuous, and at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside oneself, or oneself to be object, nature and sense for a third party, is one and the same thing.>

Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.

<But man is not merely a natural being: he is a human natural being. That is to say, he is a being for himself. Therefore he is a species-being, and has to confirm and manifest himself as such both in his being and in his knowing. Therefore, human objects are not natural objects as they immediately present themselves, and neither is human sense as it immediately is — as it is objectively — human sensibility, human objectivity is directly given in a form adequate to the human being.>

And as everything natural has to come into being, man too has his act of origin — history — which, however, is for him a known history, and hence as an act of origin it is a conscious self-transcending act of origin. History is the true natural history of man (on which more later).

From:

Karl Marx

Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy in General

[RadCap]

Using the internet as a source for understanding a philosophy is AT BEST inadequate. And you STILL have not provided ANY quotes or sources for the claims you have made ABOUT objectivism (be they from the net or elsewhere). Since you have not done that, further conversation in regard to your claims is NOT rationally possible. That said, corrections concerning your subsequent assertions CAN be made:

In point "1" you claim that the statement "Existence exists" is tautological - a NEEDLESS repetiton of a concept. Yet as I CLEARLY stated, some philosophies hold the opposite view - that "Existence does NOT exist." To DISTINGUISH the concept of existence NOT being real from existence BEING real, it is NECESSARY to say the concept "EXISTENCE" corresponds to what actually "is" - what EXISTS. I TRIED (and apparently failed) to explain this by reference to other concepts and their relation to reality. So I will make it as clear as possible:

In the context of the statement "Existence exists" "Existence" refers to the CONCEPT. "Exists" refers to that concept's relation to reality. In this case (ALSO as I stated) the referenced relation is simpy one of "being" - ie 'it IS' as opposed to 'it is NOT'.

I don't know how to make this clearer to you.

Furthermore, in both point "1" AND point "2" you claim the statement "Existence exists" does not explain WHAT in existence is primary. You claim the statement does not "take a stance" on what is "primary". Since your readings on Objectivism properly indicate "Existence exists" is the fundamental axiom of Objectivism, they should ALSO have indicated the meaning and necessary CONSEQUENCES of that axiom. I quote from aynrand.com:

“Existence exists — and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”

( http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/pobs.html )

In other words there are THREE interrelated axioms to Objectivism, the first implying the second and third: Existence, Identity, and Consciousness. And these three axioms DO tell us what is "primary" - existence - because consciousness is the faculty which PERCIEVES that existence. (A consciousness conscious of nothing or conscious of just itself, is a contradiction). The inextricable relation between these three axioms is best expressed thusly:

Existence is Identity

Consciousness is Identification.

These are SOME of the things I said you would come to understand IF you sought out the book I recommended. It explains these ideas in much more detail and to a much better degree than is POSSIBLE on a forum - or even a web page. Now since you have supposedly had the time to be banned from at least one other objectivist site, you would also have had the time to actually get the resources you need to understand that which you are railing against. That you have not suggests you are less interested in understanding Objectivism, and more interested in proselytizing Marxism. We have no interest in evangelists here.

IF you are truly interested in understanding the Objectivist philosophy - EVEN if it is just to argue against it - I must STRONGLY repeat my recommendation that you seek out Dr. Peikoff's book. Read it (at least the first few chapters, which deal with the topic at hand). And THEN come back here if you have questions or still disagree with the philosophy.

Simply put, a forum CANNOT teach you a philosophy. If can ONLY point you in the right direction.

Edit:

The above was written before having seen the previous post. However, nothing in that post changes the statements here. In fact, however, the first Hegel quote reveals the contradiction which lies at the very heart of Marxism (and all other primacy of consciousness philosophies): that identity does not exist. That existence and non-existence can "pass into each other" - ie that neither has identity.

The claim that existence and non-existence are opposites (in fact that they are the epitome of opposites, because one HAS identity where the other is the ABSENCE of identity) is dismissed as simply " an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted". In other words, it is an ad hominem/namecalling attack (only uncritical and unthinking individuals adhere to this sophistry) , combined with the argument from intimidation (certainly you don't want to be considered unthinking or uncritical. So you certainly wont claim that the '"presupposition" is true). And thrown in for good measure is the unsupported assertion that the idea of existence and non-existence having completely separate identities is "baseless".

Three or four logical fallacies in one statement. Not a great way to support one's ideas.

[Guest heusdens]

RadCap,

Thanks for your comments. Now the only reason for me to study Objectivism, is to know if and why I should have to replace Objectivism with let's say Materialism or Marxism.

To study a subject only to be able to criticize it, is not a target in and for itself, I would think. To criticize some subject, however, can turn out to be a good way in learning the subject, that is, if one already understands the basics.

I hope you didn't take this Hegel quote as a personal note, it was just a clarification on the subject matter of the opposition of being and nothing in ordinary thinking (not necessarily adapted into Objectivism).

About this quote, I guess this was a remark of an Objectivist in a discussion.

He claimed that apart from matter there are relations between material objects, which themselves are non-material. I guess I made the remark that for instance the objective relation between mass-having objects (like the earth-moon system) is based on gravitation, and that gravitation is definately material also.

Anything that exists is either material, or exists as a concept within the mind itself.

I don't see how there can be any other category of existence.

Anyhow, what is your position on this issue, if it is of relevance at all.

As far as I have come across Objectivists resources, it should be noted that most of their metaphysical and epistemilogical positions are not in any way foreign to me, and most can be accepted without difficulty. On the surface so, Marxism and Objectivism have much in common. They both reject subjectivism and any form of religion, superstition and idealism.

Where they differ is of course in their political points of view. Marxism explains human history at the basis of the class struggle, as the struggle between opposing classes. Marxism is the philosophy that takes the position of labour, and supports the liberation of the labouring class. The end goal of Marxism is the formation of a society in which there are no more opposing classes, and in which all means of production are owned commonly. There are no more opressors and opressed.

In a narrow minded view, one could say that Marx opposed capitalism. But one could also say that Marx was a strong supporter of capitalism, as capitalism destroyed the formerly existing feudal society, which was based on slavery labour.

Capitalism is just a stage of progression of human society. It liberated labourers from their feudal chains, although the capitalist system created their own chains in the form of wage-labour.

Capitalism created it's own antagonism between competing social classes, the upcoming bourgois class and the upcoming labour class. Capital is the anti-thesis of wage labour, there is no capital without wage-labour and no wage-labour without capital.

The capitalist system, the circulation of capital and accumulation of capital, the monetary system, etc., have been analysed in depth by Karl Marx. It is still up to day one of the most profound analyses of how the capitalist system works, what the causes are for periodic crisis, etc. The capitalist system is the objective social system in that it determines objective relations between labour and capital, based on wage labour. Based on the theory of surplus-value of Marx, the capitalist economy is not going to exist forever, and is inevitable going to be replaced at some day in the future.

Even if one does not adapt to Marxism or wants to become a communist, I think there are good reasons why objectivists should study Marx's works, and understand it's principles, as there is reason for Marxist to study Objectivism (as the ideology of the opposing class).

[msb]

"On the surface so, Marxism and Objectivism have much in common. They both reject subjectivism and any form of religion, superstition and idealism."

Marx accepted subjectivism in collectivist form: he thought that the nature of man was determined by the conditions that man created (the state, society). This is what he meant when he said that man was related to himself as a "species-being", that man "has no essence", etc.

Though it may superficially seem like Objectivism and Marxism share a common metaphysics, they do not. Marx accepts an ultimately Hegelian, dialectic, continuously-contradicting, negating, alienating universe. His account of the universe has no notion of Aristotelian identity. In contrast, the Objectivist metaphysics turns on an Aristotelian notion of identity. The two systems are fundamentally opposed.

While both systems posit some sort of "matter" or existence as primary, they have radically differing views on the nature of existence.

[Guest heusdens]

Mattbateman,

I said "on the surface", precisely because of the fact that below the surface they differ, and oppose each other, which is most visible in their political points of view.

Marxism indeed rejects Aristotean logic, and has adapted a Hegelian dialectical form of logic, although the Hegelian system had to be put upside down on it's feet again (getting rid of the 'world spirit' and 'absolute idea' kind of things, and placing it on a materialist groundwork).

Dialectics perceives the world in their becoming as the unity of opposing forces that form and shape the world. The law of identity has no place in the real world, as everything is subject to change, motion and tranformation. The universe is an eternal process, without begin or end.

[msb]

Correct.

As far as I know, there is no argument for this in Marx. He simply takes over the dialectic from Hegel.

Objectivism validates every aspect of its metaphysics. You should look at the already-mentioned passages of OPAR.

[Guest heusdens]

Correct.

As far as I know, there is no argument for this in Marx. He simply takes over the dialectic from Hegel.

Objectivism validates every aspect of its metaphysics. You should look at the already-mentioned passages of OPAR.

Marx did not just 'take over' Hegelian dialectics, he just disclosed the rational kernel of this dialectics,which were hidden in a mystical shell.

I just came across this text, an introduction to Anti-Duhring, about dialectics, which deals about his.

On Dialectics

[RadCap]

"I said "on the surface", precisely because of the fact that below the surface they differ, and oppose each other, which is most visible in their political points of view."

Neither 'on their surface', nor 'below the surface' do the two philosophies have anything in common. As is quite evident in the "Contradictions" thread, not only are these differences visible in their political "points of view", they are also QUITE visible in the Metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Each philosophy accepts radically different premises.

In other words, as matt stated, they are quite the opposites.

Additionally, each of the statements you have made about capitalism is false. And these falsehoods, in turn are based on those differences in ethical, epistemological, and ultimately metaphysical premises. Until they are resolved, there can be no rational discussion on the political end.

At this point, as I indicate in the Conradictions thread, we have reached a rational road block. You require much more information than you currentlly possess on the subject. And that amount of information CANNOT be imparted to you logically in the format of a forum. It would be like asking for an education in calculus here. While we can certainly give you some formulas, we cannot teach you the subject here. The format simply does not permit it.

Thus I recommend you read the oft-referenced book, because we can no longer help you here (especially when whole sets of arguments are not even ACKNOWLEDGED, let alone addressed by your subsequent statements).

[erik]

Hisdins is not interested in learning about objectivism. He is here solely to discredit it. Conversing with such a person is pointless and only gives them more opportunity to spew propaganda.

[Jason Fowler]

The 'objectivist' he referenced was more than likely myself. I stated that there exists certain things which are non-material, such as relationships between matter/material things.(ie. maths, ratios, concepts) It would appear that he believes that the metaphysical concept of existence and the scientific concept of matter are equivalent.

These relationships exist by virtue of representing reality in one way or another and are identified(rather than contrived).

[DavidV]

Hisdins is not interested in learning about objectivism. He is here solely to discredit it. Conversing with such a person is pointless and only gives them more opportunity to spew propaganda.

(He's also banned.)

[y_feldblum]

Evil GreedyCapitalist - existing only to exploit the downtrodden Interfering Marxists Union. (Just because it's acronym, expanded, is "I am you".)

The things of spirit that exist are not such things as concepts but such things as checking accounts. Such relationships between things that exist exist; but concepts do not exist by definition.

[Areactor]

Excuse me but are there any books that address Objectivist Metaphysics in entirety? There’s Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue’s of Selfishness for Ethics, Capitalism: The Unknown Idea for politics (or at least the moral foundation which I guess runs back to ethics)

[oldsalt]

Reactor: Apparently you didn't fully read the above entries. If you read Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff, you will find the info. on metaphysics you seek.

[Black Wolf]

I have a question about materialism.

Is materialism a type of determinism? Is it possible to be materialistic without being determinist?

[Plasmatic]

Evil GreedyCapitalist - existing only to exploit the downtrodden Interfering Marxists Union. (Just because it's acronym, expanded, is "I am you".)

The things of spirit that exist are not such things as concepts but such things as checking accounts. Such relationships between things that exist exist; but concepts do not exist by definition.

I know it's an old post but the above is wrong. Concepts are mental existents.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Black Wolf]

While I'm asking that question..

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/F01/chisholm.jpg

Is Objectivism more consistent with an interactionist approach?

[Hairnet]

If I am interpereting that diagram correctly, interactionism is a conclusion reached by Objectivism

[Capitalism Forever]

Is materialism a type of determinism? Is it possible to be materialistic without being determinist?

Well, since materialism holds that consciousness does not exist, at least not in any metaphysically relevant sense, a materialist will certainly not accept the notion of consciousness having causal efficacy.

[Capitalism Forever]

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/F01/chisholm.jpg

Is Objectivism more consistent with an interactionist approach?

I think that ALL the variants depicted in that diagram share a common error: they all consider "the mind" and "the body" as two separate entities. The correct view is that there is only one entity--say, a man--and "the mind" and "the body" are merely different aspects of that entity. They can only be separated from the man as abstractions, just like "the redness" can only be separated from an apple as an abstract concept for the purposes of reasoning. It would make no sense to draw diagrams of how an entity known as the apple's "redness" is related to another entity that is the apple's "fruitness."