2008 Woodie Awards
Abstractions are perilous: A response to Bauer's philosophy
Wes Demarco
Issue date: 11/13/04 Section: Viewpoint
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Special to The Provoc
Adjunct Prof. of Philosophy
Issues that may seem the most academic or abstruse do have practical consequences. Consider abstraction. Professor Bauer believes that a temptation to regard abstractions as real leads to horrors such as the Holocaust. However, the desire to eliminate prejudice against Jews should not lead us to deny that there are Jews. The desire to right historical injustices against Aboriginal Americans is thwarted, not aided, by denials that there are such peoples or that they share a history that has consequences for contemporary life. Trying to eliminate sexism it by asserting that the abstract concept of 'woman' is a fiction would be like throwing out the baby with the bath.
Abstractions are perilous. Professor Bauer is right about that. Dichotomies are also hazardous to our mental and moral health. For example, the dichotomy between mind and body forces many an issue into an ill-fitting mold by cramming or cutting down the facts to fit the concepts. What is a body? Physical particles like protons are bodies, presumably, but how about forces and fields? Is space a body? What, on the other hand, is 'mind'? Intelligence? Purpose? Consciousness? Are animals that have perception and memory but no higher cognitive functions really mindless? Are jellyfish merely bodies? It is better to conceive of a spectrum of cases, from inorganic to organic matter, to plants and animals of various levels of complexity and ability. We can then recognize different phenomena, many of which can be usefully called 'mind.' That recognition can soothe the temptation to insist that the issue is a single black-or-white question. Focusing on a spectrum of cases dissolves dichotomies across a series of differences.
Professor Bauer invokes a dichotomy when he divides his universe into abstract and concrete. He says that individuals alone are concrete and groups are abstract, and so fictitious. I want to argue that this two-dimensional and oversimple. He asks, "Do groups exist or are group concepts abstractions?" This is like asking if a jellyfish is a body or a mind. It is misleading to insist that it must be 'mere' body or have a fully rational intelligence. There are all sorts of intermediate cases.
Adjunct Prof. of Philosophy
Issues that may seem the most academic or abstruse do have practical consequences. Consider abstraction. Professor Bauer believes that a temptation to regard abstractions as real leads to horrors such as the Holocaust. However, the desire to eliminate prejudice against Jews should not lead us to deny that there are Jews. The desire to right historical injustices against Aboriginal Americans is thwarted, not aided, by denials that there are such peoples or that they share a history that has consequences for contemporary life. Trying to eliminate sexism it by asserting that the abstract concept of 'woman' is a fiction would be like throwing out the baby with the bath.
Abstractions are perilous. Professor Bauer is right about that. Dichotomies are also hazardous to our mental and moral health. For example, the dichotomy between mind and body forces many an issue into an ill-fitting mold by cramming or cutting down the facts to fit the concepts. What is a body? Physical particles like protons are bodies, presumably, but how about forces and fields? Is space a body? What, on the other hand, is 'mind'? Intelligence? Purpose? Consciousness? Are animals that have perception and memory but no higher cognitive functions really mindless? Are jellyfish merely bodies? It is better to conceive of a spectrum of cases, from inorganic to organic matter, to plants and animals of various levels of complexity and ability. We can then recognize different phenomena, many of which can be usefully called 'mind.' That recognition can soothe the temptation to insist that the issue is a single black-or-white question. Focusing on a spectrum of cases dissolves dichotomies across a series of differences.
Professor Bauer invokes a dichotomy when he divides his universe into abstract and concrete. He says that individuals alone are concrete and groups are abstract, and so fictitious. I want to argue that this two-dimensional and oversimple. He asks, "Do groups exist or are group concepts abstractions?" This is like asking if a jellyfish is a body or a mind. It is misleading to insist that it must be 'mere' body or have a fully rational intelligence. There are all sorts of intermediate cases.