The abstract in thinking: Interpretation of Hegel's concept

In the framework of this study, the features of abstract thinking in the concept of Hegel are considered. The research material was the original article by Hegel “Who Thinks Abstractly”. The subject of the study was Hegel's concept, which points to the limitations of the abstract and the leading principle of the ascent of the abstract to the concrete in order to achieve systematic scientific knowledge. The object of the analysis was the study of the abstract phenomenon, its forms and relationships with the concrete in the process of thinking and cognition of the phenomena of the surrounding reality. The aim of the research is to review and comprehend Hegel's article “Who Thinks Abstractly” with a parallel contextual analysis of the text, to form a holistic understanding of the Hegelian approach to the abstract-concrete in thinking. Before Hegel, the concrete was perceived as the objective real, which contains the diversity of individual objects and phenomena and which can be sensually known. Behind the abstract, we saw only the products of thought, abstractions, and secondary images that appeared in a person's mind. Given this, the readers of “Who Thinks Abstractly” make a mistake believing that an educated person who is able to abstract from reality has some unique abilities that an uneducated person who perceives the world linearly on the basis of causation does not have. In fact, the perception of reality by a person is impossible without abstraction. Therefore, everyone can think abstractly. The transition of real objects to abstract images is carried out by each of us, as a result of which a mental analogue of the real world is formed in consciousness. The abstract becomes the most important tool for the development of thought on the path of cognition of the object. As for the nature of the abstract in relation to human mental activity, the authors propose to distinguish at least two forms of the abstract: (a) the fragmentary abstract and (b) the systemic abstract. The fragmentary abstract allows for a lack of knowledge, gaps; tends to rational thinking, in which individual concepts are identified, accumulated and studied by themselves, beyond the mutual conditionality of each other. At the level of the fragmentary abstract, all concepts are in an incomplete and fragmented state. The systemic abstract characterizes the consistent, interrelated reflection of an object in the system. The theoretical (philosophical-logical) abstract reflects and fixes the essential and necessary aspects of cognizable objects, acting as an analog of scientific abstraction. The systemic abstract organizes various aspects, properties, qualities of the object of knowledge; sets systemic connections and their synthesis, ensuring the unity of diversity. Therefore, when we consider the relationship between the abstract and the concrete in thinking, it becomes clear that the abstract is not the metaphysical opposite of the concrete, but a stage of movement, of self-improvement of the concrete itself.

Keywords

Authors

References