more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 10747

[filed under theme 7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 11. Ontological Commitment / c. Commitment of predicates ]

Full Idea

The route to the existence of properties via ontological commitment provides little information about what properties are like.

Gist of Idea

Accepting properties by ontological commitment tells you very little about them

Source

Alex Oliver (The Metaphysics of Properties [1996], §22)

Book Ref

-: 'Mind' [-], p.59


A Reaction

NIce point, and rather important, I would say. I could hardly be committed to something for the sole reason that I had expressed a statement which contained an ontological commitment. Start from the reason for making the statement.


The 29 ideas from Alex Oliver

The expressions with properties as their meanings are predicates and abstract singular terms [Oliver]
There are five main semantic theories for properties [Oliver]
A metaphysics has an ontology (objects) and an ideology (expressed ideas about them) [Oliver]
Ockham's Razor has more content if it says believe only in what is causal [Oliver]
There are just as many properties as the laws require [Oliver]
'Structural universals' methane and butane are made of the same universals, carbon and hydrogen [Oliver]
We have four options, depending whether particulars and properties are sui generis or constructions [Oliver]
If properties are sui generis, are they abstract or concrete? [Oliver]
There are four conditions defining the relations between particulars and properties [Oliver]
Instantiation is set-membership [Oliver]
Things can't be fusions of universals, because two things could then be one thing [Oliver]
If universals ground similarities, what about uniquely instantiated universals? [Oliver]
Located universals are wholly present in many places, and two can be in the same place [Oliver]
Aristotle's instantiated universals cannot account for properties of abstract objects [Oliver]
Uninstantiated properties are useful in philosophy [Oliver]
Uninstantiated universals seem to exist if they themselves have properties [Oliver]
Abstract sets of universals can't be bundled to make concrete things [Oliver]
The property of redness is the maximal set of the tropes of exactly similar redness [Oliver]
Maybe concrete particulars are mereological wholes of abstract particulars [Oliver]
Tropes are not properties, since they can't be instantiated twice [Oliver]
The orthodox view does not allow for uninstantiated tropes [Oliver]
Tropes can overlap, and shouldn't be splittable into parts [Oliver]
Science is modally committed, to disposition, causation and law [Oliver]
Nominalism can reject abstractions, or universals, or sets [Oliver]
Conceptual priority is barely intelligible [Oliver]
Accepting properties by ontological commitment tells you very little about them [Oliver]
Reference is not the only way for a predicate to have ontological commitment [Oliver]
Necessary truths seem to all have the same truth-maker [Oliver]
Slingshot Argument: seems to prove that all sentences have the same truth-maker [Oliver]