Seems like another of those topics that need systematic study here, Andy.
mike
On 5/10/05, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> I doubt that one could sustain the thesis that Ilyenkov "redefined"
> "abstract" and "concrete" except in the sense that he may have introduced
> the philosophical meanings of the words to a non-philosophical audience. The
> claim in relation to the word "ideal" could perhaps be sustained, but not
> with "concrete" and "abstract".
> Andy
> At 08:37 PM 9/05/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> Glad the Hedegaard example was useful to you Phillip. Preparing for
> another class, I stumbled back across this passage from Engestrom, prior
> millenium.
>
>
> The point of departure in Il'enkov's work is a redifinition of the meaning
> of 'concrete' and 'abstract'. Contrary to the common notions, dialectics
> does not see 'concrete' as something sensually palpable and 'abstract' as
> something conceptual or mentally constructed. 'Concrete' is rather the
> holistic quality of systemic interconnectedness.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PDT