The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is an approach that allows you to abstract from details. Represents a theoretical ascent.
The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the restoration of the interconnections of the subject considered in the abstract. The approach is the epitome of experiential ascent.
Objects and abstractions
Aristotle said:
In science there is only the general, and in existence there is only the singular.
Specific concerns individual situations, features of a particular object. The concrete represents objective reality.
Scientific knowledge reflects general patterns, common features. The abstract reflects the idea of the object, which has its most essential features. Abstraction is a simplified reality or, if we refer to the definition of A. Comte-Sponville:
…is a concept that fits its object only on the condition of refusing to contain it entirely.
A. Comte-Sponville writes,that, for example, a color is an abstraction when considered independently of the object painted in that color. A pure color that does not belong to an object does not exist in a person's 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
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract implies a simplification of objective reality, taking into account only significant, essential properties in an object. The abstract is a sign of an object taken out of context, out of 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 subject already in the system of many abstract concepts.
Linking an abstract object to 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 the 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 a scientific theory is the embodiment of the highest form of the concrete.
From stars to points
B. I. Lenin:
Step back to better hit.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is the process of abstraction. The scholastics believed that abstractions could help to come tounderstanding of the universal.
The theory of abstractions was endowed with special significance by J. Locke, and although both empiricists and rationalists criticized it, it is still popular among representatives of the exact sciences. Some mathematicians emphasized the purely abstract nature of mathematical objects.
The essence of abstraction theory
Climbing from the concrete to the abstract is a method that allows you to discard the complexity of phenomena, focusing on their essence. It implies the rejection of features of the object that were determined to be 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. Idealization can be added to abstraction, in which the identified essential features lose some realistic features.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract and idealization are designed to simplify the process of analyzing an object. J. Locke and K. Marx believed that it was abstractions and idealizations that underlie scientific discovery.
Use
The ability to focus on essential details determines the use of abstraction in scientific activity:
- formation and assimilation of new concepts (concepts combine entire 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 ways: highlighting and analyzing some aspectsphenomena; 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.
From the first level of abstraction, thanks to abstraction, they move to higher levels: oak - tree - plant. And at every level of abstraction can be used as models.
Pros
The advantages of the method are as follows:
- the researcher can focus on a limited number of properties and relationships extracted from an innumerable number of features of an 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 final. They allow the researcher to conduct thought experiments. But together with the tools for deducing the truth, abstraction also brings confusion to science. One of the main reasons for the birth of speculative judgments is rooted precisely in the use of abstractions.
Cons
Abstraction problems:
- Essential features are selected on the basis of some assumptions that may be incorrect, which means that the analysis of abstraction will give a false idea.
- Transforming local abstractions into fundamentals. Thus, high-level abstractions (which are very far removed from reality, whichlost in the process of ascent from the concrete to the abstract many properties that are inseparable from the real object of discussion) begin to be equated with the properties of the thing of the real world.
A. S. Lebedev calls the last problem “the problem of the relationship between a thing and its properties”. He points out the difficulty of solving this problem due to the relativity of the status of abstractions (to what extent they reflect the real properties and features of a thing, how significant they are in reasoning).
A clear distinction between the level of abstraction, as shown by B. Russell, allows you to avoid 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, technocracy). As soon as the properties of an 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 full circle in cognition: from concrete objects of reality, a person forms abstractions in the mind, and then returns concreteness to abstractions (returns their realism, connections with objects, phenomena, properties). This is how analogues of objects of reality end up in the human mind.
The range of applicability of abstractions can thus be extended. A. S. Lebedev refers the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete to the methods of theoretical knowledge, or rather, to the methods of theoretical construction and substantiation of scientific theories.
Initially, the method was developed by G. Hegel to build his philosophy. He considered the process of ascent as a living being, realizing itself in the development of the world spirit. The driving force behind the transition from the abstract to the concrete, according to Hegel, was the contradictions in the object.
The implementation of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete was most complete 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. Departing from direct perception, a person comes to a schematic representation of reality, and only thanks to concretization, the unification of individual aspects into a whole, does real knowledge of reality occur.
At the level of abstract knowledge, ideas were revealed and judgments were 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
B. Kanke, describing the approach, highlights eight key points for the method:
- matter is primary;
- consciousness is a reflection of matter;
- theory - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, to which abstraction occurs;
- abstract is mass;
- specific andabstract embodiment of the struggle of opposites;
- quantity turns into quality;
- spiral development, when what was taken is returned changed;
- truth is tested by practice.
In connection with these provisions, V. Kanke raises the question of how they are reflected in each science. How can we say that practice can be the criterion of truth for mathematics? Formal-logical contradictions should be absent in the 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 is not reduced to following from the particular to the 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 constantly as the object is studied. This is not a single 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
Judging how abstract knowledge is can only be judged by comparison. The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is constantly carried out if the object of study is sufficiently complex. Most of the processes of wildlife and society are extremely complex.
An example of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the Clapeyron and van der Waals equations for gases. The first one does not take into account such a characteristic of real gases as the interaction of molecules with each other. In this case, the first equation can perfectly reflectgas condition, but under more limited conditions.
Another example of the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete is the gradual assimilation of concepts while learning. Scientists, using the method, single out and study an 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 for studying the whole. How the connections of an object/phenomenon with other objects are taken into account and in what sequence depends on the specifics of the object itself.
Due to the application of the method, there is a gradual transition to more meaningful theoretical knowledge, which more fully reproduces objective reality.
How the brain does
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 features of the object, but the object is not what we see at all.
An object is some kind of mess of atoms and emptiness. Initially, the tools for understanding the world built into a person (eyes, ears, etc.) select and encode information in a simplified way, discarding many details.
When information about an object is in the brain, in order to represent the object, you need to decode the information - move from abstraction to a concrete image. Climbing from the concrete to the abstract and vice versa - two stages in coding and restoring the perceived object inmind in the form of an image.
CV
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, of necessity, is abstraction - as a tool for isolating the bricks from which you can add an intellectual analogue of the real world object.
The applicability of an abstraction (or collection of abstractions - concepts) is extremely limited. This is due to the existence of any object of a huge number of connections, relationships and properties that cannot be fully reflected in abstraction.
Concepts acquire certainty and completeness because they do not take into account all the nuances. So concepts, concepts, theories cannot be applied to reality without looking back. As A. S. Lebedev writes, this limited applicability led to the introduction of the “interval of abstraction” into the methodology. But even in the appropriate interval, the scientist notes, it is impossible to say that some theory describes its object completely. That is why the periodic return to abstractions of the volumetric content of objects of reality, the restoration of connections and relationships make it possible to avoid many errors in the conclusions.
