- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Concrete is a term that means that something is defined in itself. That is, different definitions are in unity, and not indifferent to each other. Therefore, concrete thinking is thinking determined in itself, capable of thinking about an object determined in itself. And the abstract is thinking that is not defined in itself and thinks of an object that is not defined in itself.
Concrete thinking is rational thinking, which is the fruit of hard work and self-development. And the abstract is rational thinking, which we spontaneously develop, interacting with children in the environment of people.
Concrete thinking is dialectical, and abstract thinking follows the law of abstract identity of formal logic.
Usually, concrete thinking is understood as that which thinks the sensually perceived object in all its diversity. And under the abstract is understood that which thinks non-sensuous concepts.
But this is a mistake.
Thinking occupied with a sensible object, abstracting diversity from unity and unity from diversity, is abstract. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, thinks of a single essence in any variety of phenomena, and moreover, it also thinks of the third most important point: the unity of essence and its phenomena.
As well as non-sensory concepts, such as: cause, essence, substance, etc. You can think abstractly and concretely. You can not comprehend their own distinct definiteness and transition to something else, but you can comprehend.
There are no such forms of thinking, these are elements of logical thinking. They are easy and easy to learn with the help of my 15 logical thinking lessons on YouTube (4 hours total duration)
Concrete, this is when thinking occurs in a very narrow area of the area of really existing (tactile tangible here and now) objects and people. In its initial assumptions, there are no assumptions that may not correspond to reality. If the argument has reached a dead end, the premises may well be rechecked/revised/new ones added.
Its result is usually a single assumption, which will be checked for a strictly defined time, using a fairly simple method. The method of testing assumptions is an integral part of concrete thinking. This is usually the field of engineering, manufacturing, and other applied disciplines.
A special feature of abstract thinking is that the initial premises can be anything. Let's assume that at 24:00 today, all people on planet Earth will disappear. The package is set. Went reasoning. Premises are not reviewed, and even more so, they are not checked directly, only in the course of reasoning itself. Parts of the reasoning, models, and conclusions of abstract thinking may well (but do not have to ) contradict existing reality and well-known dogmas. This is the key. The ability to think abstractly allows you to continue reasoning when others would say “this is nonsense”, “this can't be”, etc.
Assume that protons are negatively charged and electrons are positively charged….
Suppose that an elementary particle has another quantum number.
Abstract thinking should be differentiated from all mysticism/esotericism. People who are capable of abstract thinking usually understand well where in their reasoning they have moved away from reality and quite easily move from their models to reality and back.
Mystics believe that their fantasies are real. They search for (and find) evidence of the “reality” of their models. For example, out of ten requests for “return your husband”, in one case the husband returned, ” so “the love spell “worked” well, that is, the magic works! The main thing is to explain to yourself (or at least to the client) why it didn't work where it didn't work. For example, another woman uses more expensive magic. Or else you're under a curse! Uuuu. Or…. This is not abstract thinking. And not specific. This is intuitive. On a whim. Or according to Kahneman and Tversky, the operation of system 1.
Abstract thinking deals with abstract concepts (a tree, a fish, a car…). Concrete thinking deals with concrete concepts (this is a tree that I cut down, this fish that swims in an aquarium, this car that belongs to me).
Given the answers given earlier, I would say so.
According to the law of dialectical development, the primitive concrete thinking of a child is replaced from time to time by the abstract thinking of a young student, and then by the mature concrete thinking of a master. The law of negation of negation in dialectics gives two different types of concrete thinking: before the abstract and after it.
The first concrete thinking is characterized by primitivism. This is where the oligophrenics stop. This is the inability to see the properties of objects separately from objects, and the relationships here are also strictly tied to the situation. This is not yet a fragmented whole, before logical analysis. This is where instincts and reflexes work. Vicar and operant learning. To a certain extent, animals also have this kind of thinking.
Then comes logical analysis and opens up abstract thinking with its categories, definitions and proofs. Here, theoretical constructions take place around an existing idea without the ability to create other ideas. At this level is a young maximalist. He logically divides the whole world into black and white according to this idea, but he cannot produce new ideas yet. Abstract thinking is rational and follows the laws of formal logic. Such thinking is available to computing machines.
The second concrete thinking develops with the development of the work of the mind and the dialectic of cognition. Here, a person sees an object not in a cross-section, abstractly, but in connection with its historical development, in the system of relations with other objects, and in practical terms of its usefulness and significance, both for theory and practice. Here the whole is synthesized from the parts obtained during the analysis. Such thinking can generate new ideas. Such thinking is peculiar only to a person and is acquired with experience and work on oneself and on the subject.
Metaphysical thinking is characteristic of reason, which rejects dialectics and recognizes only formal logic, thinking of objects outside their connection with history, systems and practice. It is characteristic of Western philosophy and science, for example, logical positivism.
In this case, the mind is occupied only with philosophy, and the understanding thinks abstractly and takes into account the data of sensory experience. The mind combines all this into a single pyramid of unchanging (!) knowledge.
Dialectical thinking is characteristic of reason, which recognizes and uses dialectics along with formal logic. Such a mind reveals the essence of phenomena in their dialectical unity and opposites, reveals the mutual transitions of quality and quantity, and sees the development both historically and in connection with the relations of objects in the system.
With the right classes, a person historically, like society as a whole, must go through all these three stages of dialectical development of thinking.
Concrete thinking means solving a problem using a formula, and abstract thinking means solving the problem yourself, by building a logical chain or accumulated life experience.
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. This is the specifics. This requires specific thinking.
2+2=4 – and this is already a primitive, but abstraction.
You may notice that this is quite easy to teach in school and people who do not have abstract thinking.
Well… as if-they teach. The fact is that counting sticks (units) is no more difficult than counting apples. And replacing sticks/apples with oranges, say, is not much more difficult. But when you try to put together two lakes and two lakes, two clouds and two clouds, a smart person without abstract thinking is lost. And a fool doesn't even see what the problem is. Well, yes, understanding the limits of the applicability of a model / theory is already closer to abstract thinking. And when it is present ,the “strange result” when adding lakes or clouds does not break the template. And even the addition of two triangles, when you can get at least a rhombus, even another puina.
Concrete thinking is directed at obvious material things, such as an apple, a tree, etc. But abstract thinking is associated with something spiritual and sublime. It is aimed at thinking about something complex and implicit, but at the same time obvious.