|
|
|
|
Reification (fallacy)
|
| |
|
| |
Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: when one person "holds another's affection", affection is being reified.
Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, for example, "Justice is blind." But the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a mistake (fallacy).
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Reification (fallacy)' Start a new discussion about 'Reification (fallacy)' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: when one person "holds another's affection", affection is being reified.
Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, for example, "Justice is blind." But the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, "Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In rhetoric it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly.
Pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy (in literature known as personification) is a specific subset of reification, where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but human-like and intelligent.
Etymology
From Latin res thing + facere to make, reification can be 'translated' as thing-making; the turning of something abstract into a concrete thing or object.
Theory
Reification often takes place when natural or social processes are misunderstood and/or simplified; for example when human creations are described as “facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will”. Reification can also occur when a word with a normal usage is given an invalid usage. Such "mental shortcuts" lead to ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts, particularly treating them as live beings. When human-like qualities are attributed as well, it is a special case of reification, known as pathetic fallacy (or anthropomorphic fallacy).
A reification circle refers to the event when a norm, first seen as artificial and forced, in time becomes so accepted that even its creators start to think of it as a natural law.
Willard Van Orman Quine suggests that reification exists potentially in all linguistic categorisations and naming objects, insofar as the recognition of the same object in different spatio-temporal contexts requires abstraction from time, change, interactions and relations pertaining to the object. Already Heraclitus had observed "it was impossible to step in the same river twice", and this implies that identifying the river involves the imputation or attribution of a constancy which in physical reality does not exist.
Reification may derive from an inborn tendency to simplify experience by assuming constancy as much as possible.
Reification vs hypostatisation
Sometimes a distinction is drawn between reification and hypostatization based on the kinds of abstractions involved. In reification they are usually philosophical or ideological, such as "existence," "good," and "justice."
Reification in literature
Note that reification applies to rhetorical devices, as well, such as metaphor and personification, which are not fallacies at all, but important and useful tools of language in literature. The distinction between treating abstractions as material existents rhetorically or using them in arguments that result in false conclusions, is often difficult to detect, or even to describe, especially when the fallacious use is intentional.
Examples
In philosophy, the use of the term "nothing" as if it were a special kind of something.
Another reifying use of "nothing" is found in this joke: A man walks into a bar. The bartender asks him what he wants. "Nothing," he says. "So why did you come in here for nothing?" "Because nothing is better than a dry martini."
Regarding a state or a society as a conscious being ("This product is known to the state of California to cause cancer") or assuming government is a being with desires ("Government wants to help you"). Both of these reifications are examples of the linguistic phenomenon metonymy.
The legal recognition of corporations as "individuals" may lead to fallacious assumptions. In reality, these are just organizations of capital and labor, but have been assigned the status of legal 'persons' which gives them entitlements and liabilities, such as the ability to own property or to be sued. It would be fallacious to attribute other personal qualities to corporations based on this status, e.g., "Acme Explosives is a warm-hearted company." (This anthropomorphic fallacy is explored in detail in the movie The Corporation.)
Phrases
- "The universe will not allow the human race to die out by accident." (attributes intention to the universe)
- "Religion attempts to destroy our liberty and is therefore immoral."(attributes intention to religion)
- "Good and evil are forces ruling the universe."(attributes motive to the abstract ideas of good and evil)
Similar fallacies
Pathetic fallacy (also known as anthropomorphic fallacy) is a specific type of reification. Just as reification is the attribution of concrete characteristics to an abstract idea, a pathetic fallacy is when those characteristics are specifically human characteristics, thoughts, and feelings.
The animistic fallacy involves attributing intention of a person to an event or situation. This is usually not reification because the "real" attributes are given to the perceived person involved, and not the event or situation (e.g. "The train's conductor was impatient, so we missed the train." (animistic fallacy) compared to "The train was impatient." (reification))
Reification fallacy should not be confused with other fallacies of ambiguity:
- accentus, where the ambiguity arises from the emphasis (accent) placed on a word or phrase
- amphiboly, a verbal fallacy arising from ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a sentence
- composition, when one assumes that a whole has a property solely because its various parts have that property
- division, when one assumes that various parts have a property solely because the whole has that same property
- equivocation, the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning
See also
|
| |
|
|
