Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Cox, Bruce <Bruce.Cox@u...> wrote: > Another try, after reading some entries in the OED > > Generic: General as opposed to specific; aspirin as opposed to Bayer; > > Abstract: Abstract as opposed to concrete; (a*a) + (b*b) = (c*c) "a squared > plus b squared equals c squared" as opposed to 3*3 + 4*4 = 5*5 > > An abstraction might or might not be discovered by inspection of some > instances, but an abstraction has an internal truth that is completely > independent of whether it is ever instantiated. However, aspirin is a name > for a collection of instances (with a common property) that has no existence > without those instances. Sounds like a nice distinction on the surface, but just to continue to play devils advocate for the moment; can you give me an example of an abstraction that would make sense without some concrete instance existing for reference purposes? I'm pretty skeptical that any such pure, "unattached" abstraction -- which would be the ultimate extension of your proposition -- is possible.... -- Peter Hunsberger
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
