Reification is a False Concept based Upon Concrete Logic

By

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

©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have heard that some Critical Legal Studies people have said that “logic” is a

reified concept, and therefore, invalid. Thus, it appears that they have tried to say that

“logic does not count.” In fact, the foregoing is not true. Assuming for the sake of

argument, that reification is a valid concept, we can see that “reification” is defined as the

idea that “treating an abstract concept as if it is concrete or real is reified, or, invalid.”

However, we can begin our counterattack against the above pro-reification argument by

using concrete logic. Obviously, the proponents of “reification” analysis think that all

that is real, is the “concrete.” Therefore, the pro-reification crowd cannot possibly

object to concrete logic, which is obviously concrete. Using concrete logic we see that a

person cannot have both an (A)pple and not an (A)pple in his left hand at the same time.

Either there is an Apple in the left hand, or their isn’t. There is no in between. Using

concrete linguistics we can then see that (A)pple and no (A)pple can be redefined as A

and not A. Given the validity of the Apple, not Apple, mutual exclusion, it is

immediately apparent that the A and not A, mutual exclusion is valid. In other words

you cannot have both A and not A at the same time in a logical proof or argument.

Given the foregoing, let us consider the concept of “reification.” It is clear that

“reification” is itself an abstract concept, and therefore, following the reification critique,

“reification” itself is a reified concept, and therefore invalid. We can see, that, logically,

for a concept to be valid it’s definition must not involves a logical contradiction. Based
on concrete logic, the definition of a concept cannot involve an internal contradiction

such as A and not A. Thus, we can also see that the “reification” concept defintion

cannot involve both R eification and not R eification at the same time. In other

words, there can be no R and not R at the same time in the defintion of “reification.”

Yet, we see that “reification” is itself reified, thus, there is a logical contradiction

between statement and performance, which involves the logical fallacy of hypocrisy.

Put another way “reification” is reified entails not “reification” and therefore, we end

up with both “reification” and not “reification”, and therefore, the “reification” taken

with its definition produces an illegal logical contradiction. Thus, we can see that the

concept of “reification” is false, fallacious, irrational, and invalid.