Use of Abstraction in the Analysis, Discussion, or Description of Reality
A modern generalist should avoid abstractions. To discuss an issue, topic, or factor in terms of abstractions is akin to discussing Platonic forms. There is no reality referent.
Abstractions are concepts that do not refer to reality, that do not refer to that which exists. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines abstract as, “adj. 1. thought apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea. 2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance ...” The term, abstraction, is defined as, “n. ... 2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.”
The problem with Platonic forms and abstractions, and with generalizations and types treated as abstractions, is that the attention is on the concepts rather than the reality referents of the concepts. The concepts are not the real thing, and can include error, or even be entirely fictitious. Without constant focus on the reality referents, the discussion of concepts tends to wander off into imaginative nonsense. Preoccupation with abstractions and concepts is an effective way to avoid the much more difficult discussion of the actual nature of reality.
One requirement of being a modern generalist is the prime imperative for the accurate analysis of the intrinsic nature of reality—look to the subject of investigation itself. Focus on concrete reality, specific objects, and actual instances. When a modern generalist uses a general term or talks about a type, the meaning of the term is the reality referent—all the cases, instances, occurrences of the factor. |