more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 12210

[filed under theme 7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 1. Ontologies ]

Full Idea

Quine's approach to ontology asks the wrong question, a scientific rather than philosophical question, and answers it in the wrong way, by appealing to philosophical considerations in addition to ordinary scientific considerations.

Gist of Idea

Quine's ontology is wrong; his question is scientific, and his answer is partly philosophical

Source

comment on Willard Quine (On What There Is [1948]) by Kit Fine - The Question of Ontology p.161

Book Ref

'Metametaphysics', ed/tr. Chalmers/Manley/Wasserman [OUP 2009], p.161


A Reaction

He goes on to call Quine's procedure 'cockeyed'. Presumably Quine would reply with bafflement that scientific and philosophical questions could be considered as quite different from one another.


The 29 ideas from 'On What There Is'

Canonical notation needs quantification, variables and predicates, but not names [Quine, by Orenstein]
Quine extended Russell's defining away of definite descriptions, to also define away names [Quine, by Orenstein]
For Quine, there is only one way to exist [Quine, by Shapiro]
The idea of a thing and the idea of existence are two sides of the same coin [Quine, by Crane]
Quine rests existence on bound variables, because he thinks singular terms can be analysed away [Quine, by Hale]
Quine's ontology is wrong; his question is scientific, and his answer is partly philosophical [Fine,K on Quine]
Fictional quantification has no ontology, so we study ontology through scientific theories [Quine, by Orenstein]
If commitment rests on first-order logic, we obviously lose the ontology concerning predication [Maudlin on Quine]
Quine has argued that predicates do not have any ontological commitment [Quine, by Armstrong]
There is an attempt to give a verificationist account of meaning, without the error of reducing everything to sensations [Dennett on Quine]
Quine relates predicates to their objects, by being 'true of' them [Quine, by Davidson]
Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori [Quine, by Yablo]
If to be is to be the value of a variable, we must already know the values available [Jacquette on Quine]
There is no entity called 'redness', and that some things are red is ultimate and irreducible [Quine]
The word 'meaning' is only useful when talking about significance or about synonymy [Quine]
I do not believe there is some abstract entity called a 'meaning' which we can 'have' [Quine]
Names can be converted to descriptions, and Russell showed how to eliminate those [Quine]
To be is to be the value of a variable, which amounts to being in the range of reference of a pronoun [Quine]
Intuitionism says classes are invented, and abstract entities are constructed from specified ingredients [Quine]
Conceptualism holds that there are universals but they are mind-made [Quine]
Realism, conceptualism and nominalism in medieval universals reappear in maths as logicism, intuitionism and formalism [Quine]
Logicists cheerfully accept reference to bound variables and all sorts of abstract entities [Quine]
Formalism says maths is built of meaningless notations; these build into rules which have meaning [Quine]
We study bound variables not to know reality, but to know what reality language asserts [Quine]
What actually exists does not, of course, depend on language [Quine]
An ontology is like a scientific theory; we accept the simplest scheme that fits disorderly experiences [Quine]
Treating scattered sensations as single objects simplifies our understanding of experience [Quine]
We can never translate our whole language of objects into phenomenalism [Quine]
Can an unactualized possible have self-identity, and be distinct from other possibles? [Quine]