Never Instantiate an Abstract Class
This web page is associated with a book called called Reverse Engineering the Universe.
The book can be bought at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Dr_Jerome_Heath_Reverse_Engineering_the_Universe?id=_OvqBQAAQBAJ
The book gives a more complete explanation of these issues and includes a number of related topic discussions. The combination develops the understanding of these concepts from a number of viewpoints.
Kant and Critique of Pure Reason:
Everyone has a problem with Kant's book. The problems started when it was first published. In my reading Kant trashed almost every philosophy and demonstrated that it would be easy to trash any other philosophy. The philosophical community was devastated and, of course, angry. The methodology was correct structured method and thus put structured methodology into question. The intelligentsia of the time felt that they did not want to question structured methodology as they were just then in the process of constructing it.
An abstract class.
Kant answered by expressing the fact that the problem was different assumptions that caused contradictions to arise. To counter this, according to Kant, we needed a transcendental. Somehow the transcendental would resolve the contradictions. As I see it, this is not the problem. The problem is with structuralist methodology. The problem is instantiating an abstract class. The whole process involves defining abstracts, generalities, aggregates to develop 'structure'. But to use these aggregates in a philosophical process they need to be analyzed into true and false categories. But abstracts, generalities, and aggregates cannot be resolved into true and false. True and false can only be assigned to real specifics. An item can be true or false but a generality that represents the combination of many items cannot be true or false since it represents many items and each may or may not be true or false - and very likely all the items of a generality cannot be the same truthfulness as they are separate items in reality.
Wittgenstein and I know this is my hand:
Wittgenstein talks about it this way. 'I know this is my hand' is OK when you are talking about the real specific - my hand. But if you try to use that argument to build a case for more generally knowing - then, according to Wittgenstein, the argument does not fit into the language game. You force 'knowing' into an abstract class and then feel it can be dealt with as a real class - instantiating an abstract class. You cannot instantiate an abstract class and expect to get meaningful results.
An abstract(?) hand
Moving to the transcendental as a solution is moving up to greater generality and such a higher source would be more abstract. Hegel made a similar mistake by saying a philosophy can only be judged by a philosophy in a higher language. Such a higher language would be more abstract. But back then they were really into abstract phenomenal-ism.
Just how abstract do you want to be?
Post-structuralist thought sees the problem that structuralist are blind to. The solution to the problem is in the other direction. We must provide a solution that deals with real instantiated classes, instead of with abstract generalities and aggregates. The development of truth can only be with real specifics. Thus incremental cyclic solutions can solve the whole problem quickly and meaningfully, whereas aggregates leave fuzzy hidden disconnects in the middle of any solution.
Dr. Jerome Heath
