more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

---

Single Idea 11094

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / E. Nominalism / 6. Mereological Nominalism ]

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

---

The 12 ideas from 'Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis'

17595

To unite a sequence of ostensions to make one object, a prior concept of identity is needed [Quine]

11092

A river is a process, with stages; if we consider it as one thing, we are considering a process [Quine]

11093

We don't say 'red' is abstract, unlike a river, just because it has discontinuous shape [Quine]

11095

We should just identify any items which are indiscernible within a given discourse [Quine]

11096

Discourse generally departmentalizes itself to some degree [Quine]

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]

11101

General terms don't commit us ontologically, but singular terms with substitution do [Quine]

11099

Understanding 'is square' is knowing when to apply it, not knowing some object [Quine]

11103

We aren't stuck with our native conceptual scheme; we can gradually change it [Quine]

11104

Concepts are language [Quine]

11102

Apply '-ness' or 'class of' to abstract general terms, to get second-level abstract singular terms [Quine]