Thats totally fine, friend. Essentially what you're saying that is something can be abstract, but the underlining of what you're calling abstract needs to have an axiom. I concur with you there, but I go further and much more confidently in saying that understanding and acknowledging that axiom is priority no. 1. This is so we cannot make or minimize contradictions about the reality of "things" (within the system of "things" which we are talking about). Like saying there is no axiom for the system, for example.GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Sorry for the really late reply dom,
I define abstract as we would define something metaphorically. Apparent in the realm above and apparent in the realm below. It's like the abstract interface in Java where one can extend that abstract class to other classes so as to inherit its methods. So in my definition, math is abstract but I think we don't contradict in our understanding of math and theology.
I hope this doesn't bring in more confusion. I'm really just starting out on philosophy as you can clearly see on the other post I made. Rather embarrassing really.
~Grey
You're totally fine. Sometimes, its just important to clarify these things. Hopefully, I was helpful to you in some way.