1. What is "Abstraction"?
What makes an object qualify as abstract?
2. Rene Pellet defines
abstraction as an "organization of the mind that passes beyond the
concrete and has freed itself from it" (154), providing the
conflict that abstraction in its purest state does not hold any bounds to
reality. However, can it be argued that abstraction only exists
from the concrete, not pure imagination?
- "The abstract objects of thought, such as numbers,
law, or perfectly straight lines, are real parts of nature..." (156)
3. Henry Bergson stated
that "In order to generalize one must first abstract, but in order to
abstract use-fully one
must already know how to generalize" (160). Can abstraction only
be achieved through the association of objects by individual cases?
(i.e a table being a flat surface to place items upon) Or does
human perception/ creative thinking produce the same
generalization/use of objects?
- Induction : The process
of discovering principles by
the observation and combination of particular
instances (162)
4. Arnheim advocates that
"dynamic concepts do not require an actual physical continuity of the
phenomena for which they stand..." (184). Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasoning. In
order for the human mind to grasp a concept or abstraction, do we need rational or built evidence?
5. The generalization vs
abstraction argument seems to have roots buried within
understanding and protecting what we consider as the truth (reality). Thus,
abstraction exists as an outlet to a new realm of understanding the
unattainable or unbuilt reality. If we as humans did not generalize objects or
figurative concepts, then would abstract thought be nonexistent?
By : Jafar Amin
No comments:
Post a Comment