more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Many things that seem to be abstract also seem to have a beginning (and ending) in time, such as a language like Urdu. It may be tempting to say that such things exist in time but not in space, but where exactly?
Gist of Idea
Some abstract things have a beginning and end, so may exist in time (though not space)
Source
Chris Swoyer (Abstract Entities [2008], 1.1)
Book Ref
'Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics', ed/tr. Sider/Hawthorne/Zimmerman [Blackwell 2008], p.14
A Reaction
A few distinctions might be needed. Urdu-speaking is an ability of certain people. We abstract from that their 'language'. There is nothing there apart from that ability. It has no more abstract existence than the 'weather'.
5105 | The incommensurability of the diagonal always exists, and so it is not in time [Aristotle] |
8910 | General and universal are not real entities, but useful inventions of the mind, concerning words or ideas [Locke] |
6717 | Abstract ideas are impossible [Berkeley] |
7700 | We can't think about the abstract idea of triangles, but only of particular triangles [Hume] |
8911 | If abstracta are non-mental, quarks are abstracta, and yet chess and God's thoughts are mental [Rosen on Frege] |
8634 | The equator is imaginary, but not fictitious; thought is needed to recognise it [Frege] |
8960 | Internal questions about abstractions are trivial, and external ones deeply problematic [Carnap, by Szabó] |
10136 | Points in Euclidean space are abstract objects, but not introduced by abstraction [Fine,K] |
10144 | Postulationism says avoid abstract objects by giving procedures that produce truth [Fine,K] |
10145 | Abstracts cannot be identified with sets [Fine,K] |
12212 | Just as we introduced complex numbers, so we introduced sums and temporal parts [Fine,K] |
4239 | Nominalists deny abstract objects, because we can have no reason to believe in their existence [Lowe] |
14592 | Some abstract things have a beginning and end, so may exist in time (though not space) [Swoyer] |