Philosophical analysis reveals that the boundary between concreteness and abstractness lacks fundamentality, suggesting the choice between them is largely ad hoc.
In this paper, I argue that the distinction between concreteness and abstractness is not metaphysically fundamental and that the debate between actualism and possibilism is difference-minimising. After providing a brief overview of these positions, I pursue the strategy of trading off ontological and ideological commitments to the distinction at issue. I conclude that under one interpretation, the choice between concreteness and abstractness is an ad hoc decision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin Vacek (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: