more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Why not view 'red' as naming a single concrete object extended in space and time? ..To say a drop is red is to say that the one object, the drop, is a spatio-temporal part of the other, red, as a waterfall is part of a river.
Gist of Idea
'Red' is a single concrete object in space-time; 'red' and 'drop' are parts of a red drop
Source
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 2)
Book Ref
Quine,Willard: 'From a Logical Point of View' [Harper and Row 1963], p.69
| 11094 | 'Red' is a single concrete object in space-time; 'red' and 'drop' are parts of a red drop [Quine] |
| 11097 | Red is the largest red thing in the universe [Quine] |
| 4437 | 'Mereological Nominalism' sees whiteness as a huge white object consisting of all the white things [Armstrong] |
| 4438 | 'Mereological Nominalism' may work for whiteness, but it doesn't seem to work for squareness [Armstrong] |
| 10173 | A nominalist might avoid abstract objects by just appealing to mereological sums [Reck/Price] |