more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
An abstract object can be referred to only by means of a verbal phrase, ...and no confrontation with an abstract object is possible.
Gist of Idea
Abstract objects can never be confronted, and need verbal phrases for reference
Source
Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14)
Book Ref
Dummett,Michael: 'Frege Philosophy of Language' [Duckworth 1981], p.494
A Reaction
So does this mean that animals are incapable of entertaining abstract concepts? Some research suggests otherwise. Does a dog understand what a 'walk' is, without use of the word? Dummett disgracefully neglects animals in his theories.
| 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] |