ABSTRACT: What is and what isn't?

[madscientist]

What is the exact definition of ABTSRACT? IS God and angels and our souls abstract? Because they dont need space to exist in, they EXIST. E.g. love, hate, good, bad are abstract because dont exist as such. So are spirits abstract? I would disagree if yes, because they are completely different from meanings such as love, hatred etc.
And is an abstract thing an abstract noun? Are the words spirit, soul, abstract? They cant be touched, but nor can be emptiness, hole, light, darkness, X-rays etc. But they arent abstract, are they??
Because there must be a difference in abstractness as spirits, who DO have feelings, and actually are able to love etc, or other words mentioned already.
Could anyone help on this? THx

[Canuckster1127]

What is the exact definition of ABTSRACT? IS God and angels and our souls abstract? Because they dont need space to exist in, they EXIST. E.g. love, hate, good, bad are abstract because dont exist as such. So are spirits abstract? I would disagree if yes, because they are completely different from meanings such as love, hatred etc.
And is an abstract thing an abstract noun? Are the words spirit, soul, abstract? They cant be touched, but nor can be emptiness, hole, light, darkness, X-rays etc. But they arent abstract, are they??
Because there must be a difference in abstractness as spirits, who DO have feelings, and actually are able to love etc, or other words mentioned already.
Could anyone help on this? THx

Well, Here's a Dictionary Definition

http://www.answers.com/topic/abstract

ab·stract (ăb-străkt', ăb'străkt')
adj.

• 1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
  2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See synonyms at theoretical.
  3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
  4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
  5. Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
  6. Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

I think what you may be doing is confusing two elements of the word to try and make "spirit" or "spiritual" the same as Abstract. They are not necessarily the same.

Abstract in the general sense means a concept or principle which exists in the mind and cannot be directly interacted with through the 5 senses. In this context it does not mean that that concept or principle has any sense of reality beyond that which exists in the mind of the person or persons working with or creating that concept.

Spiritual on the other hand or "spirit" in the sense you are asking, refers to a personal entity with its own will, mind etc so it exists independent of anyone's conceiving or imagining it to be.

Does that help?

[Bernie]

Abstract in the general sense means a concept or principle which exists in the mind and cannot be directly interacted with through the 5 senses. In this context it does not mean that that concept or principle has any sense of reality beyond that which exists in the mind of the person or persons working with or creating that concept.

Spiritual on the other hand or "spirit" in the sense you are asking, refers to a personal entity with its own will, mind etc so it exists independent of anyone's conceiving or imagining it to be.

But your definition of abstract in the general sense necessarily includes God, demon, spirit, etc. doesn't it? The question is, do we accept spirit as an ontological reality? We'll be mocked by the world if we do, of course.

madscientist's question, "is an abstract thing an abstract noun?" an interesting question. We live to a great degree under materialistic "rules" today, where all things things abstract aren't allowed ontic reality. Such is the supposed strength of the atheist position, that God, demon, spirit have only idealistic reality. I find the medieval theologians refreshing....they presupposed the spiritual to share reality with matter. We tend to look down our noses at them because their science was archaic by today's standards, but I think they were more spiritual than we and held more significant spiritual truths than we do today.

So, do we treat morals and spirit as ontological reality or play by the world's rules?

[Canuckster1127]

Abstract in the general sense means a concept or principle which exists in the mind and cannot be directly interacted with through the 5 senses. In this context it does not mean that that concept or principle has any sense of reality beyond that which exists in the mind of the person or persons working with or creating that concept.

Spiritual on the other hand or "spirit" in the sense you are asking, refers to a personal entity with its own will, mind etc so it exists independent of anyone's conceiving or imagining it to be.

But your definition of abstract in the general sense necessarily includes God, demon, spirit, etc. doesn't it? The question is, do we accept spirit as an ontological reality? We'll be mocked by the world if we do, of course.

madscientist's question, "is an abstract thing an abstract noun?" an interesting question. We live to a great degree under materialistic "rules" today, where all things things abstract aren't allowed ontic reality. Such is the supposed strength of the atheist position, that God, demon, spirit have only idealistic reality. I find the medieval theologians refreshing....they presupposed the spiritual to share reality with matter. We tend to look down our noses at them because their science was archaic by today's standards, but I think they were more spiritual than we and held more significant spiritual truths than we do today.

So, do we treat morals and spirit as ontological reality or play by the world's rules?

It's not "my definition" of Abstract. The dictionary link was there for a reason.

There's problems with equating spirituality with abstract thought in both directions.

You've identified what excess in the direction of atheism can imply.

The other extreme is to elevate any abstract thought to the level of being "spiritual" and therefore acceptable or good. Not so. Spiritual in that context usually seeks to avoid the implications of good and evil and in many ways mirrors the overriding post-modernistic philosphy or our day.

It's a prevelant application. It is not Biblical however.

[Bernie]

It's not "my definition" of Abstract. The dictionary link was there for a reason.

I wasn't referring to the dictionary definition but that part of your post in which you wrote:
"Abstract in the general sense means a concept or principle which exists in the mind and cannot be directly interacted with through the 5 senses. In this context it does not mean that that concept or principle has any sense of reality beyond that which exists in the mind of the person or persons working with or creating that concept."

The reason I questioned your response was because you appear to assign a reality to spiritual beings and not common abstract terms which I find a bit confusing. I happen to be a realist and assign reality of some sort to all the mind is able to apprehend. In my book, to divide reality between realist (spiritual beings) and idealist (common abstractions) positions doesn't make sense, but I'm certainly not a philosophy expert.

There's problems with equating spirituality with abstract thought in both directions.

You've identified what excess in the direction of atheism can imply.

The other extreme is to elevate any abstract thought to the level of being "spiritual" and therefore acceptable or good. Not so. Spiritual in that context usually seeks to avoid the implications of good and evil and in many ways mirrors the overriding post-modernistic philosphy or our day

.
At first I wondered if this was a personal dig, since you know full well I am the world's only rational esotericist, but Christians full of the Spirit of Christ would not stoop to this kind of pettiness.....would they?

In fact, no one I know elevates literally any abstract thought to the level of being spiritual. This appears to be a blanket condemnation against spiritualizing that has no basis in fact.

I don't follow your thought, at any rate. The power of abstraction is itself a spiritual power. The higher animals don't possess this because they don't possess spirit of either quantiative or qualitative (or both) sufficiency to abstract, to extract universals from particulars. Abstraction itself is thus in actuality a 'spiritual' power, though not all abstraction is prescriptive in nature.

I think the extremes you refer to are not based on different kinds of abstraction or universals of different natures, but the extent to which any intellectual prescriptive proposition stands in truth or falsity to absolute Truth.

The problem of 'equating spirituality with abstract thought' as you present it would be an interesting debate in itself, but who has time for such things?