Yuriy Pismak, a member of the National Union of Artists of Ukraine, an associate professor at the Odessa State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture, called the editorial office and asked to pay special attention to the incident that took place on Friday, August 3: the salon-gallery “Artist” on 18 Ekaterininskaya Street was seized by unknown persons in the morning. camouflage, calling themselves the judicial executive service, but not presenting identification. Some “new owners” locked themselves in the hall, and there, in the halls, were numerous works by our artists, which unknown persons refused to return to the members of the NSAU who had gathered outside...

The scandal of ten years ago is still in memory. Our note dated February 14, 2008: “On February 11, the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine decided the lawsuit between the Odessa private enterprise “Murph” and the Odessa organization of the National Union of Artists of Ukraine in favor of the latter.”

Well? Is everything calm in Baghdad? Yes: in the year of the 70th anniversary of the “Artist” gallery, namely on February 28, 2018, the Economic Court of the Odessa Region satisfied the claim of the American company WEST 16 STREET LLC to transfer the gallery premises into the ownership of the company. What the servants of the muses learned about on the morning of August 3 from unknown people in camouflage.

That is, they put the finishing touches on the naive “mytsivs”. And there is plenty of legal confusion in this matter. The question immediately arises: if the Odessa regional branch of the National Union of Artists of Ukraine (NSHU LLC) “didn’t know,” then who was the defendant in court? Or was the case “resolved in absentia”?

“They spread rot on culture.” It’s not culture that is being spread rot, but rather something that is in bad shape being taken into their hands. And, apparently, the premises of the “Artist” gallery were not very secure...

I paid a visit to the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Odessa region. She complained about the inaction of the police during the incident, cried about the loss of works, which, in fact, were the property of their authors: after all, no one alienated items located inside the premises in favor of an American company? You see, a competent specialist who wished to remain anonymous told me, there is still a question: do the police have the authority to interfere in the sphere of civil legal relations and property disputes? You describe, they told me, this excess in detail in the newspaper, and here they will read it and take note. Actually, the issue of returning their works to artists should be resolved by the executive service.

Writing. And how, according to the artists, it all happened, and how the bailiffs ruled. Just on August 7, a press conference of the “losing” side took place at the Odessa-Media press center...

HONORED artist of Ukraine Sergey Savchenko, deputy chairman of the board of NSKhU LLC, said the following. In 2007, the mayor’s office suddenly transferred the premises of the “Artist” gallery to the “Arcadia 2000” company...

Here - refer to our publication dated February 14, 2008: “There is another detail that is alarming and, in my opinion, suggests that artists continue to be not protected from raiding.

But... then everything becomes more unclear. The court does not recognize the rights to the premises of the "Artist" gallery for the Arcadia 2000 company - it refuses to consider the case on the right to the premises - but for some reason the company transfers the premises to the Murph company. The court also denied the rights to the Murph company, however, the latter transferred these rights to the aforementioned American company WEST 16. In 2013, there was a new raider attack. In 2018, the court for the first time “impressed” the love of a commercial company with the “Artist” gallery and took the firm’s side, confirming its certificate of ownership of the disputed object, which, according to Sergei Savchenko, was obtained in an unknown manner. According to his information, on the initiative of the General Prosecutor's Office, criminal proceedings were opened by the Odessa Regional Prosecutor's Office, and the gallery premises also appeared in the proceedings. The premises were seized. In 2017, court hearings began, and the prosecutor’s office recognized the artists as the “injured party.”

This is how Anatoly Bazelyuk, a lawyer at NSKhU LLC, views the situation. He said that the property rights of private individuals had been violated, both by the executive service and with the connivance of the police. Gallery “Artist” is an independent legal entity: that is, the gallery and NSKHU LLC are not responsible for each other’s obligations. Since 1999, the premises have been owned and used by an art gallery on the basis of a certificate of registration of a legal entity issued by the executive committee of the Odessa City Council on November 6, 1999. For some reason, the designated legal entity - an art gallery - was not a party to the trial. The decision to evict NSKHU LLC from the premises at Ekaterininskaya, 18 cannot be executed, because the premises are registered with someone else legal entity. I: On February 3, 2017, criminal proceedings were opened on the fact of fraudulent actions committed officials the Arcadia 2000 enterprise in 2007, then by employees of the Murph company and then by WEST 16 STREET LLC, which the court did not take into account. In addition, the court decision refers to eviction from an area of ​​90 square meters, while the actual area of ​​the room is 151 sq. meter.

An executive document on the forced execution of a court decision: NSKHU LLC is subject to eviction. In response, a statement from the board of NSKHU LLC: the organization is deprived of the opportunity to comply with the court decision, since the gallery premises are occupied by another legal entity. The application was not considered by the executive service on its merits.

The Law of Ukraine on Culture, Article 21, Part 4, prohibits the eviction of cultural institutions, including art galleries and exhibition halls, without providing them with other premises.

Victoria Nesterenko, a lawyer, speaking at a press conference, noted that, starting from Friday, August 3, the fate of the artists' property - their works - is not known. “Artists are in danger, art is under threat,” it was stated at the press conference; well, this, as for me, is too pretentious, but creative unions, alas, have long had a complicated relationship with the “main”: people are impractical in unions.

The Court of Appeal, according to Sergei Savchenko, confirmed the decision of the first instance.

When we asked law enforcement officers to return our paintings, the police did not react, they only said that we were interfering with their work,” artist Pyotr Nagulyak described the incident during a press conference.

The Odessa regional organization of the National Union of Artists of Ukraine appealed the decision to evict the gallery in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and also filed a complaint about the inaction of the police to the prosecutor of the Odessa region, Oleg Zhuchenko.

In a word: “Painters... put down your brushes”! There is a struggle ahead. For the “children,” including: “After all, the artist’s work is his brainchild,” says our reader Yuri Pismak, whose call to “ hot phone"turned out to be the most important thing during this duty.

On Monday, August 13, Anatoly Vasilyevich MAZURENKO is on duty at the “Evening Odessa” hotline 64-96-39 from 10.00 to 12.00.

Valentina Levchuk was on duty at the hotline

Concepts are usually divided into the following kinds: 1) singular and general, 2) collective and non-collective, 3) concrete and abstract, 4) positive and negative, 5) irrespective and correlative.

1. Concepts are divided into single and general V depending on whether one element or many elements are thought of in them. A concept in which one element is thought of is called single (for example, “Moscow”, “L.N. Tolstoy”, “Russian Federation”). The concept in which many elements are thought of is called general (for example, “capital”, “writer”, “federation”).

General concepts can be registering and non-registering. Registrants are called concepts in which the multitude of elements conceivable in it can be taken into account and registered (at least in principle). For example, “participant of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945”, “relatives of the victim Shilov”, “planet solar system" Registering concepts have a finite scope. A general concept relating to an indefinite number of elements is called non-registering. Thus, in the concepts of “person”, “investigator”, “decree”, the multitude of elements conceivable in them cannot be taken into account: all people, investigators, decrees of the past, present and future are conceived in them. Non-registering concepts have an infinite scope.

2. Concepts are divided into collective and non-collective. Concepts in which the characteristics of a certain set of elements that make up a single whole are thought of are called collective. For example, “team”, “regiment”, “constellation”. These concepts reflect many elements (team members, soldiers and regiment commanders, stars), but this multitude is thought of as a single whole. The content of a collective concept cannot be attributed to each individual element included in its scope; it refers to the entire set of elements. For example, essential features collective (a group of people united general work, common interests) are not applicable to each individual member of the team. Collective concepts can be general (“team”, “regiment”, “constellation”) and individual (“the team of our institute”, “86th rifle regiment”, “constellation Ursa Major”).

The concept in which the attributes relating to each of its elements are thought is called non-collective. Such, for example, are the concepts of “star”, “regiment commander”, “state”.

In the process of reasoning, general concepts can be used in separative and collective sense. If the statement refers to each element of the class, then this use of the concept will be dividing; if the statement refers to all elements taken in unity, and is not applicable to each element separately, then such a use of the concept is called collective. For example, when expressing the thought “1st year students are studying logic,” we use the concept “1st year students” in a disjunctive sense, since this statement applies to every 1st year student. In the statement “1st year students held a theoretical conference,” the statement refers to all 1st year students as a whole. Here the concept of “1st year students” is used in a collective sense. The word “everyone” is not applicable to this judgment.

3. Concepts are divided into concrete and abstract depending on what they reflect: an object (a class of objects) or its attribute (the relationship between objects). The concept in which an object or a set of objects is thought of as something independently existing is called specific; the concept in which the attribute of an object or the relationship between objects is thought of is called abstract. Thus, the concepts “book”, “witness”, “state” are specific; the concepts of “whiteness”, “courage”, “responsibility” are abstract. The difference between concrete and abstract concepts is based on the difference between an object, which is thought of as a whole, and a property of an object, abstracted from the latter and not existing separately from it. Abstract concepts are formed as a result of distraction, abstraction of a certain feature of an object; these signs are thought of as independent objects of thought. Thus, the concepts of “courage”, “disability”, “insanity” reflect characteristics that do not exist on their own, in isolation from the persons possessing these characteristics. The concepts of “friendship”, “mediation”, “psychological incompatibility” reflect certain relationships. These are abstract concepts.

One should not confuse concrete concepts with individual ones, and abstract ones with general ones. General concepts can be both concrete and abstract (for example, the concept of “intermediary” is general, concrete; the concept of “mediation” is general, abstract). A single concept can be both concrete and abstract (for example, the concept “United Nations” is single, concrete; the concept “the courage of Captain Gastello” is single, abstract).

4. Concepts are divided into positive and negative depending on whether their content consists of properties inherent in the object or properties absent from it. Concepts whose content consists of properties inherent in an object are called positive. Concepts whose content indicates the absence of certain properties in an object are called negative. Thus, the concepts “literate”, “order”, “believer” are positive; the concepts of “illiterate”, “disorder”, “non-believer” are negative. In Russian, negative concepts are usually expressed by words with negative prefixes “not” and “without”: “elusive”, “innocent”, “inaction”; in words of foreign origin - most often with words with a negative prefix “a”: “immoral”, “anonymous”, “asymmetry”, etc. However, words without a negative prefix can indicate the absence of some properties of an object. For example: “darkness” (lack of light), “sober” (not drunk), “silent” (taciturn). On the other hand, the concepts of “trinket” (thing for decoration), “innocent” (frank-hearted, simple-minded), “indignation” (indignation, extreme dissatisfaction) are positive; they do not contain the negation of any properties, although the words expressing them may be mistakenly perceived as words with negative prefixes.

5. Concepts are divided into non-relative and correlative in depending on whether objects are thought of as existing separately or in relation to other objects. Concepts that reflect objects that exist separately and are thought of outside their relationship to other objects are called irrelevant. These are the concepts of “student”, “state”, “crime scene”, etc. Correlative concepts contain signs indicating the relationship of one concept to another concept. For example: “parents” (in relation to the concept of “children”) or “children” (in relation to the concept of “parents”), “boss” (“subordinate”), “receiving a bribe” (“giving a bribe”). The concepts “part”, “reason”, “brother”, “neighbor”, etc. are also correlative. These concepts reflect objects, the existence of one of which is not conceivable outside of its relationship to the other.

To determine what type a particular concept belongs to means to give it logical characteristic. Thus, giving a logical characterization of the concept “Russian Federation”, it is necessary to indicate that this concept is singular, collective, specific, positive, irrespective. When characterizing the concept of “insanity,” it must be indicated that it is general (non-registering), non-collective, abstract, negative, and irrelevant.

Logical characteristics of concepts helps clarify their content and scope, develops skills for more precise use of concepts in the process of reasoning.

§ 4. Relations between concepts

When considering the relationships between concepts, one should distinguish between the concepts comparable and incomparable.

Comparable are concepts that have certain characteristics that allow these concepts to be compared with each other. For example, “press” and “television” are comparable concepts; they have common features that characterize the media.

Incomparable concepts are called that do not have common characteristics, therefore it is impossible to compare these concepts. For example: “square” and “public censure”, “crime” and “outer space”, “state” and “symphonic music”. They relate to different, very distant areas of reality and do not have signs on the basis of which they can be would be compared with each other. Only comparable concepts can exist in logical relations.

Comparable concepts are divided into compatible and incompatible.

Compatible concepts

Concepts whose scopes completely or partially coincide are called compatible. There are no signs in the content of these concepts that exclude the coincidence of their volumes. There are three types of compatibility relationships:

1)equal volume, 2)intersection (crossing) And 3)subordination (subordination).

1. Regarding equal volume there are concepts in which one and the same object is conceived. The scope of these concepts completely coincides (although the content is different). In relation to equivolume there are, for example, the concepts “ geometric figure with three equal angles" and "geometric figure with three equal sides" These concepts reflect one subject of thought: an equiangular (equilateral) triangle, their volumes completely coincide, but the content is different, since each of them contains different characteristics of a triangle.

The relationship between concepts is usually depicted using circular diagrams (Euler circles), where each circle denotes the volume of the concept, and each of its points represents an object conceivable in its volume. Circular diagrams allow you to visualize the relationship between various concepts, to better understand and assimilate these relationships.

Thus, the relationship between two equal concepts should be depicted in the form of two completely coinciding circles A and B (Fig. 1).

In the combined part of circles A and B (shaded part of the diagram) we think of those lawyers who are teachers, and in the incompatible part of circle A - lawyers who are not teachers, in the incompatible part of circle B - teachers who are not lawyers.

2. Regarding intersections (crossings) there are concepts, the scope of one of which is partially included in the scope of the other. The content of these concepts is different.

In relation to the intersection are the concepts of “lawyer” (A) and “teacher” (B): some lawyers are teachers (as some teachers are lawyers). With the help of circular diagrams, this relationship is depicted in the form of two intersecting circles (Fig. 2).

3. Regarding subordination (subordination) there are concepts, the scope of one of which is completely included in the scope of the other, constituting its part.

In this relationship are, for example, the concepts of “court” (A) and “city court” (B). The scope of the first concept is wider than the scope of the second concept; in addition to city courts, there are other types of courts - regional, regional, district, etc. The concept of “city court” is fully included in the scope of the concept of “court” (Fig. 3).

A concept that has a larger scope and includes the scope of another concept is called subordinating (A), a concept that has a smaller scope and forms part of the scope of another concept - subordinates (B).If there are two general concepts in relation to subordination, then the subordinating concept is called originally from subordinate - view. Thus, the concept of “city court” will be a species in relation to the concept of “court”. A concept can be both a species (in relation to a more general concept) and a genus (in relation to a less general concept). For example: the concept of “imprisonment for a certain period” (B) is a genus in relation to the concept of “imprisonment for five years” (C) and at the same time a type in relation to the concept of “criminal punishment” (A). The relationship between three subordinate concepts is depicted in Fig. 4.

If in a relation of subordination there are general and individual (individual) concepts, then the general (subordinate) concept is a species, and the individual (subordinate) individual. In this relationship there will be, for example, the concepts “lawyer” and “F.N. Spit.” The relations “genus” - “species” - “individual” are widely used in logical operations with concepts - in generalization, limitation, definition and division.

Incompatible concepts

Concepts whose scopes do not coincide either completely or partially are called incompatible (or external). These concepts contain features that exclude the coincidence of their volumes.

There are three types of incompatibility relationships: 1) subordination (coordination), 2)opposite (contrary), 3)contradiction (contradiction).

1. Regarding subordination (coordination) there are two or more non-overlapping concepts subordinate to a common concept for them. For example: “regional court” (B), “city court” (C), “court” (A). Concepts that are in a relationship of subordination to a common concept for them are called subordinates.

In circular diagrams this relationship is shown in Fig. 5.

2. Regarding opposites (contrary) there are concepts, one of which contains some features, and the other contains features that are incompatible with them. Such concepts are called opposite (contrary). The volumes of two opposite concepts constitute in their sum only a part of the volume of the generic concept common to them, of which they are species and to which they are subordinate; These are, for example, the relationships between the concepts of “black” and “white”, “excellent student” and “underachiever”, “friendly state” and “hostile state” (Fig. 6). The dotted line depicts the generic concept of “state”, since it is not given, but can be formed.

Concept B contains features that are incompatible with the features of concept A. The scope of these concepts does not exhaust the total scope of the generic concept “state”: there are other interstate relations.

3. Regarding contradictions (contradictions) There are concepts, one of which contains some features, and the other excludes these same features.

The volumes of two contradictory concepts constitute the entire volume of the genus of which they are species and to which they are subordinate.

In relation to the contradiction there are positive and negative concepts: “even” and “odd”, “successful” and “unsuccessful”,

"friendly state" and "unfriendly state".

Logics: Tutorial for law schools Demidov I.V.

§ 4. Types of concepts

§ 4. Types of concepts

Depending on the specific volume and content, all concepts are divided into certain types. Let us characterize the types of concepts by volume.

Single is called a concept in which one object is conceived. For example, “Russian lawyer Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako (1842-1908)”, “United Nations”, “capital Russian Federation" and others.

General is a concept in which many objects are thought of. General concepts can be registering and non-registering. Registering are general concepts in which the set of objects conceivable in them is amenable to accounting and registration. For example, “people’s deputy of Russia”, “veteran of the Great Patriotic War, living in Moscow" and others. It is known that the volume of the second concept is 188 thousand veterans.

Non-registering is called general concept, relating to an indefinite number of objects. For example, “person”, “prosecutor”, “crime” and others. Non-registering concepts have an infinite scope.

Zero(empty) are concepts whose volumes represent classes of really non-existent objects and whose existence is in principle impossible. For example, “criminal who has not committed a crime”, “civilian military lawyer”, “equilateral right triangle”, “brownie” and others. Concepts that reflect objects that do not really exist at the present time, but existed in the past or whose existence is possible in the future, should be distinguished from zero concepts. For example, “Democritus”, “thermonuclear power plant”. Such concepts are not null.

Let's consider the types of concepts by content.

Specific- these are concepts in which an object or a set of objects is thought of as something independently existing. For example, “power”, “reform”, “ international treaty", "rule of law", "lawyer" and others.

Abstract- these are concepts in which it is not the object that is thought of, but one of the attributes (property, relationship) of the object, taken separately from the object itself. For example, “whiteness”, “injustice”, “fairness”. In reality, there are white clothes, unjust actions, honest people. But whiteness, injustice, and honesty do not exist as separate, sensory things. Abstract concepts, in addition to individual properties of an object, also reflect the relationships between objects. For example, “inequality”, “similarity”, “identity”, “similarity” and others. Abstract concepts expressed in Russian do not have a plural form.

Relative- these are concepts in which objects are conceived, the existence of one of which presupposes the existence of the other. For example, “parents” - “children”, “student” - “teacher”, “boss” - “subordinate”, “plaintiff” - “defendant” and others.

Irrelevant- these are concepts in which objects are conceived that exist independently, regardless of another object. For example, “investment”, “rule”, “separatism” and others.

Positive- these are concepts whose content consists of properties inherent in the object. For example, “insight,” “literate person,” “living within one’s means,” “speaking English,” and others.

Negative are concepts whose content indicates the absence of certain properties in an object. For example, “not living within one’s means”, “not speaking English”, “injustice” and others. In Russian, negative concepts are usually expressed by words with negative prefixes “ne” and “bez” (“bes”). For example, “illiterate”, “unbeliever”, “lawlessness”, “disorder”, and in words of foreign origin - most often with a negative prefix “a”. For example, “agnosticism”, “anonymous”, “immoral”.

If the particle “not” or “without” (“demon”) merges with the word and the word is not used without it, then the concepts expressed by such words are positive. For example, “bad weather”, “carelessness”, “hatred”, “slob”. In the Russian language there is no concept of “hatred”, “nastya”, etc. The particle “not” in the above examples does not perform the function of negation, and therefore the concepts “hatred”, “bad weather” and others are positive, since they express the presence of a certain quality in an object, maybe even bad, negative - sloppiness, carelessness, greed. Therefore, such a logical characteristic of a concept sometimes does not coincide, for example, with the moral assessment of an object or phenomenon reflected in the concept. For example, the concepts of “crime” and “war” in logic are qualified as positive, although in life they are considered as negative, undesirable phenomena.

Collective are concepts in which a group of homogeneous objects is thought of as a single whole. For example, “forest”, “constellation”, “collective” and others. The content of a collective concept cannot be attributed to each individual element included in the scope of this concept. Collective concepts can be general (“grove”, “choir”) and individual (“constellation Big Dipper", "NATO military bloc").

Non-collective - These are concepts whose content can be attributed to each object of a given class that is covered by the concept. For example, “tree”, “star”, “man” and others.

Determine which of these types it belongs to concrete concept, means to give it a logical characterization. Thus, the concept of “rocket” in terms of volume is general(more than one object is thought of in it: space rocket, combat, signal, guided, unguided, single- and multi-stage, etc.), non-registering(refers to an indefinite number of objects, since we cannot say exactly how many objects are thought of in a given concept); by content - specific(a collection of objects is thought of as something independently existing), positive(characterizes the inherent property of objects to move under the action of a reactive force that occurs when the mass of burning rocket fuel is rejected), irrelevant(objects are thought of as existing independently, regardless of other objects), non-collective(the content of this concept can be attributed to each object conceivable in the concept).

In a similar way, we approach the logical analysis of, for example, the concept of “absent-minded inattention,” which is general, non-registering, abstract, negative, irrelevant, non-collective.

If a concept has several meanings, then a logical characteristic is given to it in accordance with each meaning. Thus, the concept of “museum” has two meanings: a) a building and b) a collection of interesting objects.

In the first meaning, this concept is general, non-registering, specific, positive, irrespective, non-collective.

In the second meaning - general, non-registering, specific, positive, irrespective, collective.

Thus, the logical characterization of the proposed concepts helped to clarify their content and scope, which makes it possible to more accurately use these concepts in the reasoning process.

From the book Logic author Shadrin D A

11. Types of concepts In modern logic, it is customary to divide concepts into: clear and vague; single and general; collective and non-collective; concrete and abstract; positive and negative; non-relative and correlative. The clarity of reflection is much higher in

From the book Logic for Lawyers: Textbook. author Ivlev Yuri Vasilievich

From the book Logic: A textbook for law schools author Demidov I.V.

§ 4. Types of concepts Depending on the specific volume and content, all concepts are divided into certain types. Let us characterize the types of concepts by scope. A single concept is a concept in which one object is conceived. For example, “Russian lawyer Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako

From the book Logic and Argumentation: Textbook. manual for universities. author Ruzavin Georgy Ivanovich

From the book Critique of Pure Reason by Kant Immanuel

Analysts of Concepts Chapter One On the method of discovering all pure concepts of the understanding When one begins to use the cognitive ability, then in different cases different concepts arise that make it possible to cognize this ability; if they were observed

From the book Logic in Questions and Answers author Luchkov Nikolay Andreevich

Analysts of Concepts Chapter Two On the Deduction of Pure Intellectuals

From the book Logic: A Textbook for Students of Law Universities and Faculties author Ivanov Evgeniy Akimovich

Types of concepts Based on the volume and content, the following types of concepts are considered: 1) general, singular and zero; 2) concrete and abstract; 3) collective and non-collective; 4) registering and non-registering; 5) positive and negative; 6) irrespective and

From the book Logic for Lawyers: Textbook author Ivlev Yu. V.

Chapter II. Types of concepts So far we have been talking about concepts in general. But in the practice of thinking there is a great variety of well-defined, and, moreover, very diverse concepts. How to divide them into types? This can be done in accordance with two fundamental

From the book Logic: a textbook for law schools author Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich

1. Types of concepts according to their content Objective differences between objects of thought are reflected in the differences between concepts, primarily according to their content. In accordance with this feature, concepts are divided into the following most significant groups: Concrete and abstract concepts.

From the book Logic. Tutorial author Gusev Dmitry Alekseevich

2. Types of concepts according to their scope Differences between objects of thought are also reflected in the differences between concepts according to their scope. But if the types of concepts according to their content characterize the qualitative differences of these objects, then the types of concepts according to their volume are quantitative

From the author's book

Chapter II. Types of concepts 1. Types of concepts according to their content Concrete and abstract concepts1. Determine which of the following concepts are concrete and which are abstract: “citizen”, “responsibility”, “equality”, “legitimacy”, “responsible person”, “guilt”,

From the author's book

1. Types of concepts according to their content Concrete and abstract concepts1. Determine which of the following concepts are concrete and which are abstract: “citizen”, “responsibility”, “equality”, “legality”, “responsible person”, “guilt”, “inviolability”

From the author's book

2. Types of concepts according to their scope Empty and non-empty concepts1. Indicate which concepts are empty and which are non-empty: “Universe”, “Martian”, “angel”, “homunculus”, “ichthyander”, “Santa Claus”, “ loving mother-in-law", "a crime-free state", "rights without

From the author's book

§ 4. TYPES OF CONCEPTS Concepts are divided into types according to: (1) quantitative characteristics volumes of concepts; (2) the type of items being generalized; (3) the nature of the features on the basis of which objects are generalized and distinguished. For the most part, this classification refers to simple concepts

From the author's book

§ 4. TYPES OF CONCEPTS Concepts (classes) are divided into empty and non-empty. They were discussed in the previous paragraph. Let us consider the types of non-empty concepts. By volume they are divided into: 1) single and general (the latter - into registering and non-registering); by type of generalized subjects - by 2)

From the author's book

1.2. Types of concepts All concepts are divided into several types in terms of volume and content. In terms of scope, they can be individual (the scope of the concept includes only one object, for example: the Sun, the city of Moscow, the first president of Russia, writer Leo Tolstoy), general (the scope of the concept includes many

Concepts and terms.

We propose to begin by considering various classes concepts. In works on logic by English philosophers, the presentation of logic usually begins with a consideration of terms, names or titles. They proceed from the fact that in logic we must treat not simply about concepts that represent certain mental constructs, but we must treat them insofar as they receive expression in language, in speech; and since we express concepts with the help of words, names, etc., then, in their opinion, it is much more expedient in logic to speak not about concepts, but about titles, names or terms.

Thus, we can consider either concepts as we think about them, or their expression using words.

But in reality there is no significant difference between these two considerations. Each concept in our thinking is fixed, acquires stability, certainty thanks to one or another word, name, term. When we operate with a concept in logic, we always have in mind a concept that is associated with a known word. The word is a substitute for concepts. We can only operate with those concepts that are expressed in speech. Thus, it is clear that it makes no difference whether we talk about names and terms, as is done in English logic, or whether we simply talk about concepts.

Concepts are individual and general.

Concepts are divided primarily into individual, or single, and general.

Individual concepts we will call those concepts that relate to single, individual objects (in this case individual concepts coincide with ideas about individual things), for example: “British envoy to France”, “ highest mountain in America", "author of Dead Souls", "this book". Single concepts also include proper names, for example: “Kazbek”, “Newton”, “Rome”.

Concepts that relate to a group or class of objects or phenomena that have a certain similarity to each other are called general concepts or class concepts. For example, the concepts “plant”, “animal”, “gas”, “engine”, “action”, “movement”, “beauty”, “anger”, “feeling”, etc. are class or general concepts.

General, collective and dividing terms.

Single and general concepts sometimes they can be used in a special sense, namely in the so-called collective sense. If I utter the sentence: “the forest serves to preserve moisture,” then in this sentence “forest” is one of many homogeneous objects; in this sentence the concept “forest” is used in in a general sense. But the “forest” can be represented as one whole, consisting of homogeneous units. In this case, the concept of “forest”, or the term “forest”, becomes collective, or collective.

Collective term denotes one whole, a group consisting of homogeneous units. For example, the terms "regiment", "crowd", "library", "forest", "parliament", "constellation", "inflorescence", "class" are collective terms if we mean that they serve to designate a whole made up of homogeneous units.

But these same terms become general when we think of them as individual representatives of a certain class. For example, “regiment”, “crowd” is a general term when talking about “regiments”, “crowds”; in this case, the things designated by these terms are considered as known units belonging to a known class of similar things.

If I use the terms “Pushkin Library”, “English Parliament”, then I use collective terms, because they express a known whole composed of homogeneous units. If I say “European libraries, parliaments, universities,” etc., then these are general terms, because I am talking about libraries, parliaments, universities as a well-known class of similar objects.

As can be seen from the above examples, collective concepts are a special form of individual concepts.

Since very often general concepts can be mixed with collective ones, attention should be paid to the following difference between them. What we assert regarding the concept of the collective applies to a known whole composed of individual objects, but this statement may not be applicable to the objects included in this whole and taken separately. On the contrary, what we assert regarding a general concept can be applied to each object to which this concept relates.

A collective concept is thought of as a single whole, consisting of homogeneous units; a general concept is thought of as a class that consists of similar objects. If we say “Parliament passed a law on universal conscription,” then we mean that a certain whole, composed of certain units, passed a certain law, but this cannot be said about each member of Parliament, because individual members of Parliament may speak out for maintaining the previous order of serving military service. In this case, the concept of “parliament” is used in a collective sense. But I can use the expression “Parliament has a legislative function”; in this case, the term “parliament” is used in a general sense, because the indicated expression is true for all parliaments.

Sometimes we can use certain concepts in such a way that our statements will be valid for each individual unit included in one or another group of objects. We will call this use of terms or concepts the use of divisive sense. When we use a concept in a collective sense, we refer our statement to a group considered as a whole; if we use it in a disjunctive sense, then we assert something about each member of the group separately. If we, for example, say: “the entire fleet was lost during a storm,” then we use the concept “entire” in a collective sense, because we are talking about the fleet taken as a whole. Individual ships may not perish, but the fleet as a known whole ceases to exist. If we use the expression “all the workers are tired,” then the word “all” is used in a divisive sense, because we mean the fatigue of each worker individually.