more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Onotological outrage at such objects as the 'whereabouts of the Prime Minister' derives from the fact that we seem beggared for any convincing answer to the question 'What kind of objects are they?'
Gist of Idea
We can't believe in a 'whereabouts' because we ask 'what kind of object is it?'
Source
Bob Hale (Abstract Objects [1987], Ch.2.II)
Book Ref
Hale,Bob: 'Abstract Objects' [Blackwell 1987], p.27
A Reaction
I go further and ask of any object 'what is it made of?' When I receive the answer that I am being silly, and that abstract objects are not 'made' of anything, I am tempted to become sarcastic, and say 'thank you - that makes it much clearer'.
10320 | If a genuine singular term needs a criterion of identity, we must exclude abstract nouns [Dummett, by Hale] |
10547 | Abstract objects can never be confronted, and need verbal phrases for reference [Dummett] |
9872 | Abstract objects need the context principle, since they can't be encountered directly [Dummett] |
18213 | Abstract objects are only applicable to the world if they are impure, and connect to the physical [Field,H] |
18498 | Abstract objects wouldn't be very popular without the implicit idea of truthmakers [Heil] |
10315 | We can't believe in a 'whereabouts' because we ask 'what kind of object is it?' [Hale] |
8915 | How we refer to abstractions is much less clear than how we refer to other things [Rosen] |