search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Reification

(also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatisation, pathetic fallacy [form of])

Description: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.

Logical Form:

Abstraction X is treated as if it were concrete, a real event, or a physical entity.
Because the abstraction is seen as if it were concrete, a real event, or a physical entity, the conclusion is true.

Example #1:

Dr. Simmons: I am working on a way to lengthen the human lifespan to about 200 years.
Misty: You are declaring war on Mother Nature, and Mother Nature always wins!

Explanation: Here, “Mother Nature” is being portrayed as an autonomous being capable of going to war with humanity. If this were the case, it would seem that messing with Mother Nature is futile. In reality, we are part of nature and can and always have changed nature, sometimes for the worse, but often for the better.

Example #2:

If you are open to it, love will find you.

Explanation:  Love is an abstraction, not a little fat flying baby with a bow and arrow that searches for victims.  Cute sayings such as this one can serve as bad advice for people who would otherwise make an effort to find a romantic partner, but choose not to, believing that this "love entity" is busy searching for his or her ideal mate.

Exception: In most cases, even in the above examples, these are used as rhetorical devices. When the reification is deliberate and harmless, and not used as evidence to support a claim or conclusion, then it is not fallacious.

It’s time to grab my future by the balls.

The future is an abstraction. It does not have testicles. If it did, you probably wouldn’t want to grab them because your future might sue you for sexual misconduct.

Variation: The pathetic fallacy is the treatment of inanimate objects as if they had human feelings, thought, or sensations.  Think of cursing at your computer when it does not give you the results you expect.

Fun Fact: Reification is similar to anthropomorphism, except that reification does not have to deal with human qualities.

References:

reification | literature | Britannica.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/reification

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book