Two years ago around this time I did a series of posts about logical fallacies. One of those posts was one of my most read blog posts of all time. It was about the regression fallacy. You can find it listed to the left of this post near the top of the list of my most popular. It was very relevant when it was written and continues to be. I'd recommend a read of it to anyone who hasn't already.
Today I've decided to re-post a discussion of another logical fallacy. This time it will be on what is called reification or what is also called hypostatization.
Wikipedia defines it as follows;
"Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea."
Now where do I see good examples of equating abstractions with things that are concrete or real? Consider that I describe myself as an individualist and I'll give you three guesses. The first two wont count.
Between individuals and groups, which is concrete and which is abstract? Is it possible to find out a group you thought you were in doesn't actually exist? Of course. It's probably happened to most of the people who are reading this right now. e.g. You were put on a committee that was cancelled before it ever met. It never really existed. Now is it possible that you don't exist? I don't write to fictional abstract people so no.
Take that Descartes! You read my blog therefore you are. But seriously, the individual is as fundamental to the concrete as it gets. Groups such as economic classes, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, groups defined by gender or sexual preferences, nations, and communities, these are abstractions by comparison to individuals.
Of course I would be guilty of another logical fallacy if I were to tell you groups are just abstract beliefs or hypothetical constructs. They are collections of concrete things, most specifically individuals so they are in that sense concrete too. It's possible to gather a group together in a room with us and point them out without any need of imagination.
But there is still something there that is an abstract belief or hypothetical construct. And that's the definition we used to determine that what we have before is a group. Change that definition and we no longer have a group, or maybe we have more than one group, or one that extends beyond the room we're in. That part is abstract and without both the abstract part and all the concrete parts that were essentially defined into it we don't have a group.
So when someone attempts to apply moral instructions intended for individuals to groups, such as in social justice, that someone becomes guilty of reification or hypostatization. The same is true of people who pit economic classes or ethnic groups against each other by making it seem that the acts of one person against another is the same as actions of one group against another group, and thus the group they hope to get votes from should "stick it to" some other group.
And it's the fact that groups are half abstract and half concrete that makes this commonly practiced logical fallacy so easy to get away with. The fact that only the individual is purely concrete becomes clouded in people's minds. Many people who attempt to argue with the collectivists are accused of not caring about the individuals that make up the collectives when quite the opposite is true.
To understand today's world is to understand logical fallacies. Here's a big one, reification. The fallacy is that groups matter as much as individuals. The truth is that only individuals are real and groups are just abstract groupings. We must never forget who we should serve.
Today I've decided to re-post a discussion of another logical fallacy. This time it will be on what is called reification or what is also called hypostatization.
Wikipedia defines it as follows;
"Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea."
Now where do I see good examples of equating abstractions with things that are concrete or real? Consider that I describe myself as an individualist and I'll give you three guesses. The first two wont count.
Between individuals and groups, which is concrete and which is abstract? Is it possible to find out a group you thought you were in doesn't actually exist? Of course. It's probably happened to most of the people who are reading this right now. e.g. You were put on a committee that was cancelled before it ever met. It never really existed. Now is it possible that you don't exist? I don't write to fictional abstract people so no.
Take that Descartes! You read my blog therefore you are. But seriously, the individual is as fundamental to the concrete as it gets. Groups such as economic classes, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, groups defined by gender or sexual preferences, nations, and communities, these are abstractions by comparison to individuals.
Of course I would be guilty of another logical fallacy if I were to tell you groups are just abstract beliefs or hypothetical constructs. They are collections of concrete things, most specifically individuals so they are in that sense concrete too. It's possible to gather a group together in a room with us and point them out without any need of imagination.
But there is still something there that is an abstract belief or hypothetical construct. And that's the definition we used to determine that what we have before is a group. Change that definition and we no longer have a group, or maybe we have more than one group, or one that extends beyond the room we're in. That part is abstract and without both the abstract part and all the concrete parts that were essentially defined into it we don't have a group.
So when someone attempts to apply moral instructions intended for individuals to groups, such as in social justice, that someone becomes guilty of reification or hypostatization. The same is true of people who pit economic classes or ethnic groups against each other by making it seem that the acts of one person against another is the same as actions of one group against another group, and thus the group they hope to get votes from should "stick it to" some other group.
And it's the fact that groups are half abstract and half concrete that makes this commonly practiced logical fallacy so easy to get away with. The fact that only the individual is purely concrete becomes clouded in people's minds. Many people who attempt to argue with the collectivists are accused of not caring about the individuals that make up the collectives when quite the opposite is true.
To understand today's world is to understand logical fallacies. Here's a big one, reification. The fallacy is that groups matter as much as individuals. The truth is that only individuals are real and groups are just abstract groupings. We must never forget who we should serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment