Epistemology is the theory/study of knowledge. For the duration of human history, philosophers have rummaged through this vast topic to explore every ideology or paradox conceivable. Because of this, a lot of interesting ideologies have been made, i.e. realism and nominalism (topics I covered in the last blog). There are many others, like idealism, foundationalism, and formalism. However, while looking at formalism today, I had an interesting thought:
How does your brain understand abstract concepts?
If I’m looking at this very pragmatically, the answer is that your brain takes previous memories and combines it to form a coherent view of the topic. Basically, your brain uses prior information. For example, humanity is an abstract concept. It’s not something that exists within space and time; it is something we created. How does your brain understand humanity? Well, I think it may be that your brain takes memories involving the word humanity and sort of pieces together a puzzle. This is why when you understand abstract concepts, unlike sensory information, various different parts of the brain are activated, with no clear If someone who is evil is called “inhumane”, and someone who was very nice to you has “humanity” then clearly that means that humanity is (in a sense) moral qualities, a sense of benevolence.
You could also take it in the literal sense, that humanity means having human qualities, but our memories tend to associate humanity with positive emotions. However, that’s a psychological and neurological standpoint. Let’s look at this philosophically. What is an abstract object?
Most people would assume it’s something made up in your head, but other philosophers have come up with distinct ideas. First, in metaphysics, an abstract object is disputed, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s say that abstract objects do not belong to the physical realm (they have no spatiotemporal existence) and they are generally concepts or categories. They also lack any causal powers because they do not exist within space and time, if at all they do exist. Just like I covered the Problem of Universals, this is also somewhat connected. This is because of the debate of what abstract objects are–whether they are creations of the mind or things that exist outside of time and space, like Plato believed with his Theory of Forms. This theory of forms is one of the main ways to address the existence of universals, which are the biggest part of abstract objects. The idea he had was that for every physical thing, there are forms, or abstract concepts that manifest itself into reality.
I don’t really know how to react to this theory. It feels like there isn’t really a great rationale for it, but that’s likely because I don’t understand it. However, there is some form of truth to this idea.
Consider this: most of us would agree that we learn from sensory input. We learn from watching others, hearing others, observing and paying attention. But there are some things that we as humans innately understand from our birth. Plato brought up an interesting idea, which is that from birth humans understand perfect circles, squares, triangles, etc. Now, in the modern world, we see “perfect” shapes everywhere because we can precisely draw things now. For example, when you’re a kid and you have one of those sets of blocks and a little box that has a square hole, circle hole, so on and so on. However, we have to remember that humans created these, and in nature, these things don’t appear. So, there does seem to be a little bit of truth to what Plato says about having innate knowledge. There are also a few studies that show we have mathematical instincts even without the basic understanding of individual numbers and quantities we get in elementary school. Because of this, Plato’s Theory of Forms explains that when we discover universals (categories or concepts) we’re not truly learning anything. Instead, we’re discovering Forms which we attained from heaven. It’s an interesting theory, and one that has some plausibility.
However, one thing that Plato said is (in my opinion) very wrong. Let’s talk about shapes. It’s not entirely true that we are born with innate knowledge and have no understanding of perfect shapes. Almost perfect shapes are present everywhere in reality. For example, perfect circles appear in tree stumps, within the solid rings on the inside. Tree stumps aren’t perfectly circle, but they can be close. Another example is the layers of an onion. These are also circular, and they are much more accurate than a tree stump. My idea is that humans may have taken these shapes from nature. These aren’t perfect shapes, but it is no stretch to assume that the brain can’t take these shapes and create the idea of a perfect shape.
Another example of this is pyrite. Pyrite is able to form in nearly perfect cubes, which could have influenced the idea of perfect squares. These examples are somewhat rare, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that humans acquire the ability to perceive shapes, as it appears in nature very often. Nature does have various correlations to math, like the Fibonacci sequence or geometrical patterns in the shape of molecules.
So, do I believe in the idea that there are forms outside of time and space? Well, I don’t prefer that theory, but I can’t say it’s false. A lot of philosophy I’ve seen tends to stray from science, and I feel like that creates some confusion. I think that there should be a more physical, scientifical component to epistemology, because otherwise it becomes too abstract and otherworldly to come to a conclusion. I don’t blame Plato for his Theory of Forms; for the time, it’s actually ingenious. It also makes sense, as the worldview of the Greeks did not have nearly as much widespread science in it, and they mostly had mythological, religious beliefs. However, in today’s society, I think it makes sense for epistemologists to dive into the science and psychology of the brain more. If we looked into the neurons being fired when thinking of abstract math, we may find clues. For example, take people with dyscalculia (a condition that makes math hard for people). Is the issue these people have with math simply with connections? Like, if they see six sticks, do their minds struggle to place the quantity to the symbol 6? Does it struggle to connect the quantity to the verbal sound “six”? Or is there actually a problem with quantities? I’m not sure how you would figure this out, but it’s a good question to think about.
Nevertheless, we may never truly know what abstract objects are. If they do exist outside of time and space, how do we access them? And more importantly, can we ever truly confirm that they exist? These are all good questions, but for now, let’s wait for the great minds and thinkers out there to come up with a solution.