more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 13134
[filed under theme 5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / a. Names
]
Full Idea
We negate predicates but do not negate names.
Gist of Idea
We negate predicates but do not negate names
Source
Jan Westerhoff (Ontological Categories [2005], §88)
Book Ref
Westerhoff,Jan: 'Ontological Categories' [OUP 2005], p.215
A Reaction
This is a point for anyone like Ramsey who wants to collapse the distinction between particulars and universals, or singular terms and their predicates.
The
14 ideas
from 'Ontological Categories'
|
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]
|