Philosophy 101 #2 – The Difference Between Abstraction and Idealization

Abstraction, taken straightforwardly, is a matter of bracketing, but not denying, predicates that are true of the matter under discussion…Idealization is another matter: it can easily lead to falsehood. An assumption, and derivatively a theory, idealizes when it ascribes predicates – often seen as enhanced, ‘ideal’ predicates – that are false of the case in hand, and so denies predicates that are true of that case. For example, if human beings are assumed to have capacities and capabilities for rational choice or self-sufficiency or independence from others that are evidently not achieved by many or even by any actual human beings, the result is not mere abstraction; it is idealization.

– Onora O’Neill, Towards Justice and Virtue (1996), pp.40-41.

Philosophy is often accused of falling prey to the vices of abstraction and idealization. Keeping these two notions separate is very important. Abstraction is a kind of thought that aims to say something true on a general level such that it could be true of many cases. Idealization is a kind of thought that proceeds in the abstract register, though involves premises that skew reality. The first should be the friend of the philosopher, and can be a very handy intellectual tool. The second can be deeply misleading.

Take the examples of milkshakes. An abstract sentence might run as follows, ‘A good milkshake is a milk and cream based drink.’ This sentence is abstract since it says nothing about flavour, temperature, total ingredients, size, deliciousness etc. If you had never seen or tasted a milkshake before, this sentence doesn’t give you that much of an idea of what milkshakes are like. But this in itself is, of course, no vice. In O’Neill’s language, this abstract sentence has simply put those issues to one side – those issues which may be more descriptive, but that can change from milkshake to milkshake – for the sake of achieving a helpful description that will apply to many things that we want  to call good milkshakes.

Compare this with this idealized sentence, ‘A good milkshake is a refreshing milk and cream based drink that leaves the drinker feeling youthful, energized, and like they can take on the world.’ This is still an abstract kind of sentence since you are talking at a level of generality that aspires to describe all milkshakes. The difference is that this last sentence builds what O’Neill calls ‘enhanced predicates’ into the abstraction. Is it really true that  all milkshakes will leave the drinker feeling empowered in such a way?

If you were a milkshake enthusiast, and wanted to come up with a theory of milkshakes, this first would be a helpful starting point, albeit abstract, the second would be a bad starting point since your theory is skewed from the outset, and worthy of the criticism of being ‘idealized’. As I see it, this is one basic job of philosophers working in all fields, and once basic contribution philosophy can make to other  discourses.

So next time when you hear a philosopher being criticized for being way too abstract and idealistic, remember that these are different things, and only one of them is a problem.