display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
4 ideas
13043 | A relation is a set consisting entirely of ordered pairs [Potter] |
Full Idea: A set is called a 'relation' if every element of it is an ordered pair. | |
From: Michael Potter (Set Theory and Its Philosophy [2004], 04.7) | |
A reaction: This is the modern extensional view of relations. For 'to the left of', you just list all the things that are to the left, with the things they are to the left of. But just listing the ordered pairs won't necessarily reveal how they are related. |
22284 | 'Greater than', which is the ancestral of 'successor', strictly orders the natural numbers [Potter] |
Full Idea: From the successor function we can deduce its ancestral, the 'greater than' relation, which is a strict total ordering of the natural numbers. (Frege did not mention this, but Dedekind worked it out, when expounding definition by recursion). | |
From: Michael Potter (The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 [2020], 07 'Def') | |
A reaction: [compressed] |
8962 | 'There are shapes which are never exemplified' is the toughest example for nominalists [Hoffman/Rosenkrantz] |
Full Idea: The example which presents the most serious challenge to nominalism is 'there are shapes which are never exemplified'. | |
From: J Hoffman/G Rosenkrantz (Platonistic Theories of Universals [2003], 3) | |
A reaction: To 'exemplify' a shape must it be a physical object, or a drawing of such an object, or a description? If none of those have ever existed, I'm not sure what 'are' is supposed to mean. They seem to be possibilia (with all the associated problems). |
8961 | Nominalists are motivated by Ockham's Razor and a distrust of unobservables [Hoffman/Rosenkrantz] |
Full Idea: The two main motivations for nominalism are an admirable commitment to Ockham's Razor, and a queasiness about postulating entities that are unobservable or non-empirical, existing in a non-physical realm. | |
From: J Hoffman/G Rosenkrantz (Platonistic Theories of Universals [2003], 3) | |
A reaction: It doesn't follow that because the entities are unobservable that they are non-physical. Consider the 'interior' of an electron. Neverless I share a love of Ockham's Razor and a deep caution about unobservables. |