The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is an approach that allows one to abstract from particulars. It is a theoretical ascent.
The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the restoration of the interconnections of the subject considered abstractly. The approach is the epitome of empirical ascent.
Objects and Abstractions
Aristotle said:
In science, there is only the general, and in existence, only the singular.
Concrete concerns single situations, features of a certain object. The concrete is an objective reality.
Scientific knowledge reflects universal laws, common features. Abstract reflects the idea of the object, which has its most significant features. Abstraction is a simplified reality or, if we turn to the definition of A. Comte-Sponville:
... this concept, corresponding to its object only on condition of refusal to contain it in its entirety.
A. Comte-Sponville writes that, for example, a color is an abstraction when viewed independently of an object painted in that color. A pure color that does not belong to an object does not exist in human life.
The same considerations apply to form. A person can perceive a form only as a form of something, some kind of matter. Abstraction allows us to talk about form in general.
Concrete and abstract as stages of cognition
Climbing from concrete to abstract implies simplification of objective reality, taking into account only significant, essential properties in an object. Abstract is a sign of an object taken out of context, from its actual development.
In the context of the scientific approach, the abstract is an object in isolation from its connections with the real world and its other objects. Therefore, after the abstractions are created, it is necessary to reflect the objective reality of the object already in the system of many abstract concepts.
Linking an abstract object with other objects leads to the creation of an analogue of the real world with the help of a proven theory. To the theoretical reproduction of the unity of features of an object. This is what is meant by the transition from the abstract to the concrete. In the dictionary of G. G. Kirilenko it is emphasized that scientific theory is the embodiment of the highest form of the concrete.
From stars to points
V.I. Lenin:
To move away, or rather to get there.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is a process of abstraction. The scholastics believed that abstractions could help come to an understanding of the universal.
The theory of abstractions was especially endowed by J. Locke, and although it was criticized by empiricists and rationalists, it is still popular with representatives of the exact sciences. Some mathematicians emphasized the purely abstract nature of mathematical objects.
The essence of the theory of abstractions
Climbing from concrete to abstract is a method that allows you to discard the complexity of phenomena, focusing on their essence. It implies the rejection of the characteristics of the object, which were identified as insignificant.
Abstraction makes it possible to examine in detail the features of an object, without being distracted by all the information about the object as a whole. An idealization may be added to the abstraction, in which the distinguished essential features lose some realistic features.
Ascent from concrete to abstract and idealization are designed to simplify the process of analyzing an object. J. Locke and C. Marx believed that it was abstractions and idealizations that underlie scientific discovery.
Using
The ability to focus on the essential details determines the use of abstraction in scientific activity:
- the formation and assimilation of new concepts (concepts combine whole classes of objects that have some similar features);
- creating models of objects and situations.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract can be used in two variations: the selection and analysis of certain aspects of the phenomenon; consideration of the property of a phenomenon as a separate phenomenon in itself. Among the results of abstraction are common names and concepts: wood, heaviness, sound, color, etc.
Thanks to abstraction, they pass from the first level of abstractions to higher levels: oak - tree - plant. And at each level, abstractions can be used as models.
pros
The advantages of the method are the following features:
- the researcher can focus on a limited number of properties and relationships isolated from countless features of the object;
- the researcher is not limited by real conditions (human capabilities, limitations of time and space) when studying an abstract model.
Abstractions are convenient, useful, universal. They make the process of deriving theories and the process of proving them finite. They allow the researcher to conduct mental experiments. But together with tools for deriving the truth, abstraction brings confusion to science. One of the main reasons for the birth of speculative judgment is rooted in the use of abstractions.
Minuses
Problems of abstraction:
- Essential features are selected on the basis of some assumptions that may be incorrect, which means that an analysis of abstraction will give a false idea.
- The transformation of local abstractions into the fundamental foundations. Thus, abstractions of high levels (which are very far removed from reality, which were lost during the ascent from the concrete to the abstract of many properties inalienable from the real object of discussion) begin to be equated with the properties of things in the real world.
A. Lebedev calls the last problem "the problem of the relationship of a thing and its properties." He points to the difficulty of solving this problem in view of the relative status of abstractions (how much they reflect the real properties and features of a thing, how significant they are in the discussion).
A clear distinction between the level of abstraction, as shown by B. Russell, avoids paradoxes (for example, the paradox of a liar). A. S. Lebedev emphasizes that the problem of mixing levels of abstractions often led to incorrect views (irrationalism, relativism, technocratism). As soon as the properties of the object begin to be perceived as the primary facts of reality, the possibility of errors and speculative statements opens up.
From dots to stars from dots
The principle of ascent from the abstract to the concrete implies a complete circle in cognition: from concrete objects of reality, a person forms abstractions in the mind, and then returns concreteness to abstractions (returns them realism, connections with objects, phenomena, properties). That is how analogues of reality objects appear in the human mind.
The range of applicability of abstractions in this way can be extended. A. S. Lebedev relates the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete to the methods of theoretical knowledge, and more precisely, to the methods of theoretical construction and substantiation of scientific theories.
Initially, the method was developed by G. Hegel to build his philosophy. He regarded the ascent process as a living being, realizing himself in the development of the world spirit. The driving force of the transition from the abstract to the concrete, according to Hegel, was the contradiction in the object.
The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete was most fully realized in the fundamental work of K. Marx. Already starting from it, many Soviet scientists used an analogue of the approach - the dialectical method.
The essence of the approach
Marx argued that the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the only possible way to solve the problems of theoretical knowledge. Moving away from direct perception, a person comes to a schematic representation of reality, and only through concretization, the unification of individual aspects into a whole does real knowledge of reality take place.
At the level of abstract knowledge, ideas were identified and judgments formulated, ascent to the concrete allows enriching them with real material. Instead of a schematic angular system, we get a living organism that exists in the mind, which is an analogue of the object of reality.
Key Features and Challenges
V. Kanke, describing the approach, identifies eight key points for the method:
- matter is primary;
- consciousness is a reflection of matter;
- theory - an ascent from the abstract to the concrete, to which abstraction occurs;
- abstract is mass;
- the concrete and abstract embodiment of the struggle of opposites;
- quantity goes into quality;
- spiral development when the filmed returns altered;
- truth is verified by practice.
In connection with these provisions, V. Kanke raises the question of how much they are reflected in every science. How can we say that for mathematics practice can be a criterion of truth? Formal logical contradictions should be absent in theory and from the standpoint of the dialectical method. But are there dialectical contradictions?
Other scientists consider the method as concretization and differentiation, believing that it does not come down to following from a particular to a general or deductive method. Basically, the irreducibility to any other method is explained by the fact that the ascent from the concrete to the abstract must take place continuously as the object is studied. This is not an isolated act when abstractions are completely created and synthesized into new, more concrete knowledge. You can say so, but only greatly simplifying the essence of the method.
Application
To judge how knowledge is abstract is possible only by comparison. Ascent from the abstract to the concrete is carried out continuously if the object of study is sufficiently complex. Most of the processes of wildlife and society are extremely complex.
An example of an ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the equations for the Clapeyron and Van der Waals gases. The first does not take into account such a characteristic of real gases as the interaction of molecules between themselves. In this case, the first equation can perfectly reflect the state of the gas, but in more limited conditions.
Another example of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the gradual assimilation of concepts in training. Scientists, using the method, isolate and explore the object / phenomenon in isolation from its connections; specify the object of study taking into account the results of the previous analysis.
The method is used exclusively to study the whole. How the relations of an object / phenomenon with other objects are taken into account and in what sequence depends on the specifics of the object itself.
Thanks to the application of the method, a gradual transition to a more substantial theoretical knowledge takes place, which more fully reproduces objective reality.
How does the brain
Any objects that a person can think of, in fact, also went through abstraction and ascent from the abstract to the concrete. When a person encounters an object in reality, an object code is created in his brain - this is an abstraction from the object. This code registers the features of the object, but the object is not at all what we see.
An object is some kind of mess of atoms and emptiness. Initially, tools for understanding the world built into a person (eyes, ears, etc.) select and encode information already simplified, discarding many details.
When the information about the object is in the brain, in order to represent the object, you will need to decode the information - go from abstraction to a specific image. The ascent from the concrete to the abstract and vice versa are two stages in coding and restoring the perceived object in the mind as an image.
Summary
In science, there is a constant transition from the study of specific objects in reality to the creation of specific objects in cognition. One of the stages of such a transition, if necessary, is abstraction - as a tool for isolating the bricks from which you can add an intellectual analogue of an object of the real world.
The applicability of abstraction (or a collection of abstractions - concepts) is extremely limited. This is due to the existence in any object of a huge number of connections, relationships and properties that cannot be fully reflected in abstraction.
Concepts therefore acquire certainty and completeness because they do not take into account all the nuances. So, concepts, concepts, theories cannot be applied without regard to reality. According to A. S. Lebedev, this limited applicability led to the introduction of an “interval of abstraction” in the methodology. But even in the corresponding interval, the scientist notes, it is impossible to say that any theory describes its object completely. That is why the periodic return to the abstractions of the volumetric content of objects of reality, the restoration of relations and relationships can avoid many errors in the conclusions.