Reification A Tract Book Essay By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2008 by Anthony J.

Fejfar Previously, I have argued that Reification is a false concept. However, I have also argued that it is possible that the concept could be reformulated. Currently, reification is typically defined as “treating an abstract concept as if it is really concrete.” I would argue on the other hand that you could define reification as “treating some abstract concepts as if they are really real when they are not.” Here are two examples.

First, an abstract concept is illusory when there is no real definition of the concept. For example, I have heard that some people criticize others on the basis that they are engaging in “theosphany.” The problem with this is that “theosphany” is not defined in the dictionary. When a concept is not adequately defined, it is illusory and reified when used. Similarly, certain concepts are logically contradictory, and I would consider them

to be reified as well. Finally, I would note that the idea that reification as to do with the lack of a “concrete” referent is absurd. This is just another way of dressing up another aspect of the absurd philosophy of logical positivism and atheistic materialism. THE END

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful