> but I think it’s all too easy to use a philosophical observation that a concept isn't "a thing" when what you mean is probably it's an abstraction for lot

> but I think it’s all too easy to use a philosophical observation that a concept isn't "a thing" when what you mean is probably it's an abstraction for lots of things with disparate factors and implications Absolutely. And it's a bit of an empty neologism. What I'm getting at is those things we think we've a solid definition of, but are slippery and gets away. The "thing" is the misguided idea that there's a common 'object' there.