46 ideas
| 7950 | Philosophy tries to explain how the actual is possible, given that it seems impossible [Macdonald,C] |
| 7923 | 'Did it for the sake of x' doesn't involve a sake, so how can ontological commitments be inferred? [Macdonald,C] |
| 18776 | Contextual definitions eliminate descriptions from contexts [Linsky,B] |
| 21704 | 'Impredictative' definitions fix a class in terms of the greater class to which it belongs [Linsky,B] |
| 7933 | Don't assume that a thing has all the properties of its parts [Macdonald,C] |
| 21705 | Reducibility says any impredicative function has an appropriate predicative replacement [Linsky,B] |
| 18774 | Definite descriptions, unlike proper names, have a logical structure [Linsky,B] |
| 21727 | Definite descriptions theory eliminates the King of France, but not the Queen of England [Linsky,B] |
| 21719 | Extensionalism means what is true of a function is true of coextensive functions [Linsky,B] |
| 21723 | The task of logicism was to define by logic the concepts 'number', 'successor' and '0' [Linsky,B] |
| 21721 | Higher types are needed to distinguished intensional phenomena which are coextensive [Linsky,B] |
| 21703 | Types are 'ramified' when there are further differences between the type of quantifier and its range [Linsky,B] |
| 21714 | The ramified theory subdivides each type, according to the range of the variables [Linsky,B] |
| 21713 | Did logicism fail, when Russell added three nonlogical axioms, to save mathematics? [Linsky,B] |
| 21715 | For those who abandon logicism, standard set theory is a rival option [Linsky,B] |
| 7944 | Reduce by bridge laws (plus property identities?), by elimination, or by reducing talk [Macdonald,C] |
| 7938 | Relational properties are clearly not essential to substances [Macdonald,C] |
| 7967 | Being taller is an external relation, but properties and substances have internal relations [Macdonald,C] |
| 21729 | Construct properties as sets of objects, or say an object must be in the set to have the property [Linsky,B] |
| 7965 | Does the knowledge of each property require an infinity of accompanying knowledge? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7934 | Tropes are abstract (two can occupy the same place), but not universals (they have locations) [Macdonald,C] |
| 7958 | Properties are sets of exactly resembling property-particulars [Macdonald,C] |
| 7972 | Tropes are abstract particulars, not concrete particulars, so the theory is not nominalist [Macdonald,C] |
| 7959 | How do a group of resembling tropes all resemble one another in the same way? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7960 | Trope Nominalism is the only nominalism to introduce new entities, inviting Ockham's Razor [Macdonald,C] |
| 7951 | Numerical sameness is explained by theories of identity, but what explains qualitative identity? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7964 | How can universals connect instances, if they are nothing like them? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7971 | Real Nominalism is only committed to concrete particulars, word-tokens, and (possibly) sets [Macdonald,C] |
| 7955 | Resemblance Nominalism cannot explain either new resemblances, or absence of resemblances [Macdonald,C] |
| 7961 | A 'thing' cannot be in two places at once, and two things cannot be in the same place at once [Macdonald,C] |
| 7926 | We 'individuate' kinds of object, and 'identify' particular specimens [Macdonald,C] |
| 7936 | Unlike bundles of properties, substances have an intrinsic unity [Macdonald,C] |
| 7930 | The bundle theory of substance implies the identity of indiscernibles [Macdonald,C] |
| 7932 | A phenomenalist cannot distinguish substance from attribute, so must accept the bundle view [Macdonald,C] |
| 7937 | When we ascribe a property to a substance, the bundle theory will make that a tautology [Macdonald,C] |
| 7939 | Substances persist through change, but the bundle theory says they can't [Macdonald,C] |
| 7940 | A substance might be a sequence of bundles, rather than a single bundle [Macdonald,C] |
| 7948 | A statue and its matter have different persistence conditions, so they are not identical [Macdonald,C] |
| 7929 | A substance is either a bundle of properties, or a bare substratum, or an essence [Macdonald,C] |
| 7941 | Each substance contains a non-property, which is its substratum or bare particular [Macdonald,C] |
| 7942 | The substratum theory explains the unity of substances, and their survival through change [Macdonald,C] |
| 7943 | A substratum has the quality of being bare, and they are useless because indiscernible [Macdonald,C] |
| 7927 | At different times Leibniz articulated three different versions of his so-called Law [Macdonald,C] |
| 7928 | The Identity of Indiscernibles is false, because it is not necessarily true [Macdonald,C] |
| 7947 | In continuity, what matters is not just the beginning and end states, but the process itself [Macdonald,C] |
| 7417 | God can't have silly perfections, but how do we decide which ones are 'silly'? [Joslin] |