Thinking the unthinkable
Reflections on the abstract and concrete
A book is a concrete thing. The word “book,” on the other hand, is an abstraction. We might describe a book as “interesting,” “my favorite” or “difficult to read” — and these are also abstractions.
We are not always consistent or even rational in how we use abstractions to think about and talk about concrete things.
Let us consider why.
“Interesting”
Suppose we describe Talab’s Black Swan as an interesting book. This act of describing both influences what we think of the book, and what we think of the word interesting. In fact, both might change. Similarly, we might describe Piketty’s Capital as an interesting book. Note, we did not say “another interesting book” because the two books might be interesting in completely diverse ways. Or in other words, the abstract “interesting” means something completely different. As a result, if we were asked to list some of our interesting books, we might only include one or the other or neither.
“My most favorite book”
Mathematically, one can only have one most favorite book. But like “interesting,” “favorite” is also an abstraction. And like “interesting” we could apply the tag to multiple books. Which is why we (and even you) have many most favorite books.
“Difficult to read”
The phrase “difficult to read” is another abstraction we use to describe books. But what does it mean? Is the language too complex, the structure too convoluted, or are the ideas themselves challenging to comprehend? Again, different books may be difficult to read for entirely different reasons. And even within the same book, what one reader finds challenging might be effortless for another. So, we need to be careful with such abstractions, and try to articulate more specific reasons for why a book might be difficult to read.
Thus, our use of abstractions to describe concrete things like books is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies. Words like “interesting,” “favorite,” and “difficult to read” can mean different things to different people, and even to the same person at various times.
So why suffer and stand such contradictions and inconsistencies?
The answer is simple. We have no other choice. The only way to talk and think is through language. Language is innately abstract. Even though much of what we want to talk about (like books) is concrete and beyond the reach of the abstract.
When we think, we think of the unthinkable. When we talk, we talk about the untalkable.
