The Concept of Reification is Illogical

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Previously, I have argued that “reification” is a false, incoherent concept because

“reification” itself is a “reified” concept. Following Peter Gabel, “reification” is defined

as “wrongfully” treating an “abstract concept” as if it is “concrete.” Of course, it is

immediately apparent that “reification” itself is an “abstract concept” and therefore, that

“reification” itself is a “reified” concept because Gabel and others are treating

“reification” as if it is concrete or “real” when it is only inauthentically reified and

therefore a false concept. Now, Duncan Kennedy might respond that the arguments

above involve logic, and that somehow “logic does not count” because “logic” is a reified

concept. In fact, Kennedy’s argument fails. You see, “logic” is defined operationally as

that discipline which is concerned with making sure that ideas or concepts used in an

argument do not involve a logical contradiction, such that, you cannot, for example, have

“A” and “not A” at the same time. Now, it is clear that logic operations are not reified.

You see, taking the reification concept on its own terms, just for the sake of argument, it

is apparent that concrete logic cannot be reified, because, it is concrete. Thus, when we

start our cognitive psychology proof for the validity of logic operations with the concrete

logic operation and sensory experiment of evaluating whether or not a person could

concretely have (A)pple in his left hand and not (A)pple at the same time, we see that

this is impossible. Either my left hand is empty (no (A)pple, or, it has an Apple in it, that

is (A)pple. Thus, we can see that assuming the validity of the reification critique, for the
sake of argument, it is clear that logical operations, which are based upon concrete logical

operations, are obviously not reified. Therefore, we are entitled, to use logic to evaluate

the validity of the “reification” concept itself. When “reification” is logically evaluated

we find that reification is itself a false concept because it is logically contradictory, and

thus is invalid. Thus, it is apparent that the use of the term “reification” in any

argument, as defined above, is illegal sophistry, and must be condemned as immoral,

unethical, and evil.