more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 4064

[filed under theme 7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / g. Particular being ]

Full Idea

According to Quine's conception of existence, the idea of a thing and the idea of existence are two sides of the same coin.

Gist of Idea

The idea of a thing and the idea of existence are two sides of the same coin

Source

report of Willard Quine (On What There Is [1948]) by Tim Crane - Elements of Mind 1.5

Book Ref

Crane,Tim: 'Elements of Mind' [OUP 2001], p.17


A Reaction

I suspect that Quine's ontology is too dependent on language, but this thought seems profoundly right


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]