Talk:Concrete
From Academic Kids
Truly confused. You say: it is both particular and *an individual*, hence occupying some space and time. But an individual as a noun refers to a person. I think you want to say that: it is both particular and individual, hence occupying some space and time. Then you expand on this and compound the confusion with: So, to say that something is concrete is to say that it is a particular *individual* that is located at a particular place and time. Are only individuals, i.e. people, concrete? I always thought my PC was concrete. I guess I had better look at it. An abstract PC will be little help in disputing this definition. Please clarify.
'Individuals' (as in P. F. Strawson's book by the title) in philosophical jargon refer not just to individual human beings but to any individual (numerically singular) thing.
A beautiful pun one of my profs made, completely unintentionally: Sometimes being concrete actually makes things harder. We need a place to put information about sidewalk-stuff, too.
:-) Hopefully, we'll be able to start disambiguating words with parentheses; then I'll direct you to concrete (metaphysics), I suppose.----
"In general, a [[concept]] is considered concrete if it is not abstract..."(from concrete)
"A concept is an abstract, universal mental entity that serves to designate a category or class of entities, events or relations."(from concept link)
I think I'm confused:)
The article mentions John Smeaton as the pioneer of the use of portland cement in concrete. John Smeaton's article, however, makes no mention of this, and both the [portland cement] and the [Joseph Aspdin] article cite Joseph Aspdin as its inventor. Can someone clarify/confirm? Uly 12:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
