more on this theme     |     more from this text

Single Idea 13117

[filed under theme 7. Existence / E. Categories / 1. Categories ]

Full Idea

How far down are we allowed to go before the categories become too special to qualify as ontological categories?

Gist of Idea

How far down before we are too specialised to have a category?

Source

Jan Westerhoff (Ontological Categories [2005], Intro)

Book Ref

Westerhoff,Jan: 'Ontological Categories' [OUP 2005], p.4

A Reaction

A very nice question, because we can't deny a category to a set with only one member, otherwise the last surviving dodo would not have been a dodo.

The 14 ideas from Jan Westerhoff

13117 How far down before we are too specialised to have a category? [Westerhoff]
13116 Maybe objects in the same category have the same criteria of identity [Westerhoff]
13118 Categories are base-sets which are used to construct states of affairs [Westerhoff]
13115 Ontological categories are like formal axioms, not unique and with necessary membership [Westerhoff]
13119 Categories merely systematise, and are not intrinsic to objects [Westerhoff]
13124 Categories can be ordered by both containment and generality [Westerhoff]
13123 All systems have properties and relations, and most have individuals, abstracta, sets and events [Westerhoff]
13125 Categories are held to explain why some substitutions give falsehood, and others meaninglessness [Westerhoff]
13126 Categories systematize our intuitions about generality, substitutability, and identity [Westerhoff]
13130 Categories as generalities don't give a criterion for a low-level cut-off point [Westerhoff]
13129 Essential kinds may be too specific to provide ontological categories [Westerhoff]
13131 The aim is that everything should belong in some ontological category or other [Westerhoff]
13134 We negate predicates but do not negate names [Westerhoff]
13135 A thing's ontological category depends on what else exists, so it is contingent [Westerhoff]