Philosophy Now Forum

Hypostatization & Subreption
These two points are relevant to the debate 'Whether Morality is Objective or not'.

Hypostatization
Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.
It involves attributing substantial existence to something that is, in reality, an abstract idea.

Ordinary Examples:
Love: Treating love as a physical entity, like a person or object, rather than an emotion or feeling.
Freedom: Believing freedom is a tangible thing that can be possessed or lost, rather than a concept or state of mind.
Justice: If someone were to say, "Justice demands action," they are hypostatizing "justice," treating it as if it were a tangible force or entity that can make demands. In reality, justice is an abstract Concept, not a concrete thing that can make demands.

"Fact" [philosophical realism] which is an "abstract" but hypostatized as an absolutely mind-independent things, i.e. it exists regardless whether there are humans or not.
In reality this philosophical realists' 'what is fact' is a noumenon in contrast to the the philosophical antirealists' [Kantian] "what is fact" which is contingent upon a human based framework and system.

Example from Critique of Pure Reason:
The noumenon: Kant argues that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is a concept that cannot be directly perceived or experienced. However, some might hypostatize the noumenon, imagining it as a concrete object existing independently of our perception.

The soul: Often conceived as a non-physical, spiritual entity, the soul is often hypostatized when it is treated as a separate, autonomous substance that can exist independently of the body.

The world: When the world is viewed as a self-sufficient, independent entity, it is hypostatized. This is often seen in metaphysical theories that posit the world as a self-existing, ultimate reality.

God: The concept of God is often hypostatized when it is conceived as a personal, omnipotent being who exists independently of the universe. This is particularly common in theistic religions.

When we claim the soul, world, or God to be absolutely independent entities, we are essentially giving them a tangible existence that transcends the realm of human experience and understanding.

Subreption
Subreption is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is drawn based on a hidden or unstated assumption. In other words, it's when a premise is smuggled into an argument without being explicitly stated or justified.

Ordinary Examples:
Argument from ignorance: Assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false (e.g., "Since we haven't found extraterrestrial life, it must not exist").

Begging the question: Assuming the conclusion of an argument as one of its premises (e.g., "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God").

Example from Critique of Pure Reason:
The transcendental illusion: Kant argues that our tendency to treat the categories of understanding as if they applied to things-in-themselves can lead to a transcendental illusion. This is a form of subreption, as we are implicitly assuming that our categories are applicable to the noumenal world, even though they are only valid for phenomena.

In summary: Hypostatization and subreption are two related philosophical concepts that can lead to errors in reasoning.
Hypostatization involves treating abstract concepts as concrete objects, while subreption involves making arguments based on hidden or unstated assumptions.
Both concepts are relevant to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, as he explores the limitations of human knowledge and the potential pitfalls of metaphysical speculation.

In addition to the above, a related term,

Reify:
"Reify" is also a philosophical and linguistic term that refers to the process of treating an abstract Concept as if it were a concrete object. However, "reify" specifically involves giving material form to something that is abstract.
For instance, if a society collectively decides on certain cultural values and then builds monuments or institutions to represent those values, they are reifying those abstract values into tangible, physical forms.

Hypostatization & Subreption is also presented here
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

Discuss??
Views??

Kant Critique of Metaphysics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

2.2 Hypostatization and Subreption

There are two noteworthy themes implicit in Kant’s criticism of Metaphysics.

Hypostatization
First, Kant offers an account and critique of the Ideas of Reason specific to each discipline.
In relation to this, the general theory of Reason plays a role in Kant’s efforts to argue against the “hypostatization” [abstract as actual] of each of the Ideas.

More specifically, Kant’s criticism of the metaphysical disciplines centers on his efforts to show that the Ideas of Reason (the Soul, the World and God),
which are thought in accordance with the demand for an Unconditioned that could unify the relevant domain of conditions,
get erroneously “hypostatized” [abstract as actual entities] by Reason,
or thought as mind-independent “objects” about which we might seek knowledge. [Transcendental Realism]

In the same way, that is, that the prescription to seek the Unconditioned
appears to Reason as an objective principle,
so too, the subjective* Ideas appear to Reason as objects existing in a mind-independent way.

Kant’s aim is to secure the subjective Ideas while enforcing their subjective status, and thereby defusing the Metaphysics that attends to them.

Thus, Kant’s criticism of Metaphysics simultaneously involves
1. denying the pure use of theoretical Reason as an instrument for knowledge of Transcendent objects,
2. and defending Reason’s Ideas as projections or goals that have some significant role to play in the overall project of knowledge acquisition. [as useful illusions]

As we shall see, Kant unfortunately is not as clear as we might like on this issue.
Sometimes, he seems to argue that the Ideas and Principles of Reason play a merely heuristic role in guiding and systematizing the knowledge already obtained.
Other times, he suggests that these Ideas are deeply essential to the project of knowledge acquisition, and that their presupposition is utterly necessary if we are to acquire knowledge. [?? Diff types of knowledge]

Regardless of how the matter is to be resolved, it is clear that Kant’s criticism of Metaphysics does not entail any straightforward rejection of the Ideas and Principles of Reason.
Indeed, it appears to be precisely the rational constraint to move to the Ideas of Reason that binds us to our metaphysical propensities and which thus demands a critique of the kind offered by Kant.


Subreptions
In addition to criticizing the “hypostatization” [abstract as actual] of the Ideas of Reason,
Kant seeks to expose the “subreptions” [see above] involved in the use of the Ideas.

The term “subreption” refers to a fallacy that specifically involves the surreptitious [attempts to avoid notice or attention] substitution of different kinds of terms and concepts.
Kant usually uses the term [“subreption”] to refer to
the error of confusing or substituting concepts and principles meant for use in experience (those which properly apply to appearances)
with Principles of “Pure Reason.”

By this means,
a concept or principle which is a condition of our experience (e.g., the principle of apperception)
is used [erroneously] in a way that assumes its applications to “objects-in-general” or things-in-themselves.

Alternatively, [subreption is where] a most general, formal, principle that would only hold for things-in-general
is [erroneously] taken, by itself alone,
to yield knowledge about appearances.

This second kind of criticism found throughout the Dialectic thus pertains to Kant’s efforts to expose the subreptions that ground the illusory metaphysical arguments.

Ultimately, Kant will also seek to reveal the very specific formal fallacies that vitiate [destroy or impair the legal validity of] the metaphysical arguments,
to demonstrate that (although they have the appearance of soundness)
the positions in each case are implicitly
grounded in, or deploy,
- Dialectical uses of terms and concepts,
- misapplications of principles, and
- conflations of appearances with things-in-themselves.

What we find in Kant’s criticism of Metaphysics, in other words, is a complex account, one grounded in a fairly robust Theory of Human Reason.
Accordingly, he identifies
Reason as the locus of certain principles and propensities, and certain “illusions,”
which cooperate with misapplications of concepts and principles
to create the errors already exposed in the Transcendental Analytic. [which?]

Although this variety of aims and complaints certainly complicates Kant’s discussions in the Dialectic, it also makes for a richer and more penetrating criticism of Metaphysics

Notes:

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Love: Treating love as a physical entity, like a person or object, rather than an emotion or feeling.

I found this an odd example, especially as formulated of Hypostatization

Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.

Love isn't a physical entity, it's an emotion or feeling. Hm. Aren't those physical? They are certainly not abstract. In fact emotions are about as concrete as something can be.

Also love, generally, isn't just a feeling. The word love, to me, is more a complicated batching of phenomena. It's not that those phenomena are or are not physical, but rather that the words is covering a lot of turf with a variety of categories of phenomena and perhaps 'things'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am In addition to the above, a related term,

Reify:
"Reify" is also a philosophical and linguistic term that refers to the process of treating an abstract Concept as if it were a concrete object. However, "reify" specifically involves giving material form to something that is abstract.
For instance, if a society collectively decides on certain cultural values and then builds monuments or institutions to represent those values, they are reifying those abstract values into tangible, physical forms.

The AI is confused here. Making monuments or instutions to represent a value is not reification; it's something like making physical symbols to represent a batching term: Reification is more a cognitve process. One can even ask the AI about that, it will likely notice it is confused here.

You can really see the confusion of AIs around emotions however. They don't really get emotions. They confuse batching physical processes with reification. Though admittedly these are not entirely separate terms.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Hypostatization
Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.
It involves attributing substantial existence to something that is, in reality, an abstract idea.

It seems to me that Hypostatization is an example of itself.
and more humorously
Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
is so clearly hypostatization. How ironic!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Love: Treating love as a physical entity, like a person or object, rather than an emotion or feeling.

I found this an odd example, especially as formulated of Hypostatization

Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.

Love isn't a physical entity, it's an emotion or feeling. Hm. Aren't those physical? They are certainly not abstract. In fact emotions are about as concrete as something can be.

Also love, generally, isn't just a feeling. The word love, to me, is more a complicated batching of phenomena. It's not that those phenomena are or are not physical, but rather that the words is covering a lot of turf with a variety of categories of phenomena and perhaps 'things'.

AI did not assert 'love is a physical entity'.
Love is an emotion or feeling but there are those who hypostatize 'love' it, i.e. treat it like something tangible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am In addition to the above, a related term,

Reify:
"Reify" is also a philosophical and linguistic term that refers to the process of treating an abstract Concept as if it were a concrete object. However, "reify" specifically involves giving material form to something that is abstract.
For instance, if a society collectively decides on certain cultural values and then builds monuments or institutions to represent those values, they are reifying those abstract values into tangible, physical forms.

The AI is confused here. Making monuments or instutions to represent a value is not reification; it's something like making physical symbols to represent a batching term: Reification is more a cognitve process. One can even ask the AI about that, it will likely notice it is confused here.

You can really see the confusion of AIs around emotions however. They don't really get emotions. They confuse batching physical processes with reification. Though admittedly these are not entirely separate terms.

Applying Principle of Charity, I can understand the point.
Generally, reification is a mental process but this can be extended to physical objects in the extreme cases.
There are cases of "co-operations" [& mental events] between parties where tangible monuments are built to signify it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Hypostatization
Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.
It involves attributing substantial existence to something that is, in reality, an abstract idea.

It seems to me that Hypostatization is an example of itself.
and more humorously
Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
is so clearly hypostatization. How ironic!

Philosophical realism [including indirect realism, direct realism, scientific realism and the like] is a case of hypostatization.
The noumenon is merely a thought but philosophical realists hypostatize it as something of substance that exists absolutely mind-independent and regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The philosophical realist who is a theist hypostatize the thing-in-itself as an independent soul, the whole universe, and God as absolutely mind-independent and exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Here is a point from:
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921

Throughout the Analytic Kant elaborates on this general view, noting that the Transcendental employment of the Understanding [intellect], which aims towards knowledge of things independently of experience (and thus knowledge of “noumena”), is illicit (cf. A246/B303).

This is a case of subreption and hypostatization;
The "Transcendental employment of the Understanding [intellect]" [the noumena] refer is an abstraction,
in this case, there is an attempt to treat this noumena [independent of experience] as knowledge of things [actual], thus hypostatization; the messing up the noumena [abstract] with experience-reality is a case of subreption.

The article explained why there cannot be 'subreption' and 'hypostatization'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Love: Treating love as a physical entity, like a person or object, rather than an emotion or feeling.

I found this an odd example, especially as formulated of Hypostatization

Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.

Love isn't a physical entity, it's an emotion or feeling. Hm. Aren't those physical? They are certainly not abstract. In fact emotions are about as concrete as something can be.

Also love, generally, isn't just a feeling. The word love, to me, is more a complicated batching of phenomena. It's not that those phenomena are or are not physical, but rather that the words is covering a lot of turf with a variety of categories of phenomena and perhaps 'things'.

[/quote]

AI did not assert 'love is a physical entity'.

Exactly, the AI said it wasn't. It said it was abstract, but it is not abstract. The AI contrasted human feelings and emotions with the physical. It said that Love was an emotion or feeling which it indicated, if you look at the definition and the sentence as not physical.

Love is an emotion or feeling but there are those who hypostatize 'love' it, i.e. treat it like something tangible.

Feelings and emotions are physical. Those words are referring to a bunch of physical processes that we feel.
Tangible is from Latin tangere, "to touch," and it simply means something that can be touched or felt, .
They are precisely things we can feel, exactly things we can feel. Also they refer to a variety of physical changes in the body, exactly phyiscal as anything studied in the physiology of humans and animals is physical and can be studied, for example, in the sciences.
So, it was confused.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:01 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am In addition to the above, a related term,

Reify:
"Reify" is also a philosophical and linguistic term that refers to the process of treating an abstract Concept as if it were a concrete object. However, "reify" specifically involves giving material form to something that is abstract.
For instance, if a society collectively decides on certain cultural values and then builds monuments or institutions to represent those values, they are reifying those abstract values into tangible, physical forms.

The AI is confused here. Making monuments or instutions to represent a value is not reification; it's something like making physical symbols to represent a batching term: Reification is more a cognitve process. One can even ask the AI about that, it will likely notice it is confused here.

You can really see the confusion of AIs around emotions however. They don't really get emotions. They confuse batching physical processes with reification. Though admittedly these are not entirely separate terms.

Applying Principle of Charity, I can understand the point.
Generally, reification is a mental process but this can be extended to physical objects in the extreme cases.
There are cases of "co-operations" [& mental events] between parties where tangible monuments are built to signify it.

But there you go, it is to signify it. Ask the people in that place if the statue is freedom itself and they know its not.
I found it odd, actually, that the AI said this - and in fact if you present it to an AI, at least some of them, they understand the mistake and have a different label for it.
In fact I found the OP weak in general for an AI.
I think they may have more trouble, and understandibly, with emotions, feelings, the physical, abstraction and the concepts that they are trying to grapple with here, precisely given their own nature.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:08 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 4:52 am Hypostatization
Hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept or idea as if it were a concrete, material object. In simpler terms, it's when we give a tangible existence to something that exists only in our minds or thoughts.
It involves attributing substantial existence to something that is, in reality, an abstract idea.

It seems to me that Hypostatization is an example of itself.
and more humorously
Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
is so clearly hypostatization. How ironic!

Philosophical realism [including indirect realism, direct realism, scientific realism and the like] is a case of hypostatization.
The noumenon is merely a thought but philosophical realists hypostatize it as something of substance that exists absolutely mind-independent and regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The philosophical realist who is a theist hypostatize the thing-in-itself as an independent soul, the whole universe, and God as absolutely mind-independent and exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Here is a point from:
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921

Throughout the Analytic Kant elaborates on this general view, noting that the Transcendental employment of the Understanding [intellect], which aims towards knowledge of things independently of experience (and thus knowledge of “noumena”), is illicit (cf. A246/B303).

This is a case of subreption and hypostatization;
The "Transcendental employment of the Understanding [intellect]" [the noumena] refer is an abstraction,
in this case, there is an attempt to treat this noumena [independent of experience] as knowledge of things [actual], thus hypostatization; the messing up the noumena [abstract] with experience-reality is a case of subreption.

The article explained why there cannot be 'subreption' and 'hypostatization'.

This isn't really a response to what I wrote but why don't you ask the AI if 'mind' is a hypostatization. Just that simple flat question. You might find it regarding it very much like PH does.

All language is reifying, for example, processes into objects. If we combine Kan'ts sense that we cannot know noumena only phenomena, there are no objects, especially if we combine Kant with quantum mechanics. We have shifting experience, phenomena. Tomorrow when I look at what we hypostatize as 'the same chair' actually we will experience different phenomena. We will not have the exact same experience. The same exact phenomena will not appear to us. We call it 'that chair', but this is refering to a wide range of experiences over time and further even if we think of matter 'out there' it is actually shifting fileds of probabilities and energies. All knowledge and all words are hypostatization.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:01 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 5:34 am
The AI is confused here. Making monuments or instutions to represent a value is not reification; it's something like making physical symbols to represent a batching term: Reification is more a cognitve process. One can even ask the AI about that, it will likely notice it is confused here.

You can really see the confusion of AIs around emotions however. They don't really get emotions. They confuse batching physical processes with reification. Though admittedly these are not entirely separate terms.

Applying Principle of Charity, I can understand the point.
Generally, reification is a mental process but this can be extended to physical objects in the extreme cases.
There are cases of "co-operations" [& mental events] between parties where tangible monuments are built to signify it.

But there you go, it is to signify it. Ask the people in that place if the statue is freedom itself and they know its not.
I found it odd, actually, that the AI said this - and in fact if you present it to an AI, at least some of them, they understand the mistake and have a different label for it.
In fact I found the OP weak in general for an AI.
I think they may have more trouble, and understandibly, with emotions, feelings, the physical, abstraction and the concepts that they are trying to grapple with here, precisely given their own nature.

The ordinary examples are merely a kickstart for the topic. You can ignore those ordinary examples you find doubtful.
What is critical with the OP is not the ordinary examples but those examples related to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:30 am The ordinary examples are merely a kickstart for the topic. You can ignore those ordinary examples you find doubtful.

So, you went from saying I was wrong, to now saying I could ignore them. But the AI is showing, I think, that it doesn't really grasp these ideas through it's examples.
If we are going to have an authority on the subject and that authority can quite think about these concepts, it's worth pointing this out. And it's not surprising, how would an LLM understanding these kinds of words made by beings that move around in the world, have qualia, for example, deal with the abstract and the concrete in different ways, have sensory systems. I'm not saying AIs can never manage this and perhaps the strongest ones we do not have access to on the internet can. But I think we are in an area that is problematic for current AIs.

What is critical with the OP is not the ordinary examples but those examples related to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

What's critical in part is if the AI really grasps the idea at all.