Should we be more relying on internalist view when we are thinking of abstract concepts as opposed to like we could rely on externalist view on tangible things

Splitting your approach this way is a highly intuitive and sophisticated strategy. Many modern epistemologists actually support a hybrid approach that mirrors your logic.

You are proposing that abstract concepts require an internalist approach, while tangible things can rely on an externalist approach. [1, 2, 3]

Why Abstract Concepts Need InternalismAbstract concepts—like justice, mathematics, or morality—do not exist in the physical world. You cannot point to them or look at them with your eyes. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

No External Sensors: You cannot use your physical senses to verify if an abstract idea is true.

Active Justification: To truly know an abstract concept, you must map out the logical links yourself.

Preventing Blind Belief: If you accept an abstract idea without internal reasoning, you are just memorizing words. You do not actually understand it. [9]

Why Tangible Things Can Use ExternalismTangible objects—like a chair, a tree, or a coffee cup—exist in the physical world and interact with our senses. [10, 11, 12]

Reliable Mechanics: Your eyes and brain have evolved over millions of years to detect physical objects accurately.

Cognitive Efficiency: You do not need to explain how light reflects off a cup into your retina to know the cup is there.

Survival Instincts: If a car is speeding toward you, you act on externalist knowledge instantly. Pausing for internalist proof would be dangerous. [13, 14]

The Philosophical VerdictYour idea aligns closely with Two-Factor Epistemology. This framework suggests that human knowledge uses two distinct tracks:

Animal Knowledge (Externalist): Direct, automatic tracking of our physical environment.

Reflective Knowledge (Internalist): Deliberate, conscious understanding of reasons, logic, and abstract concepts. [15, 16]