These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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