more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 4434
[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / E. Nominalism / 5. Class Nominalism
]
Full Idea
Class Nominalists substitute classes or sets for properties or kinds, so that being white is just being a member of the set of white things; relations are treated as ordered sets.
Gist of Idea
'Class Nominalism' says that properties or kinds are merely membership of a set (e.g. of white things)
Source
David M. Armstrong (Universals [1995], p.503)
Book Ref
'A Companion to Metaphysics', ed/tr. Kim,Jaegwon/Sosa,Ernest [Blackwell 1995], p.503
A Reaction
This immediately seems wrong, because it invites the question of why something is a member of a set (unless membership is arbitrary and whimsical - which it usually isn't).
The
14 ideas
from 'Universals'
|
4440
|
'Resemblance Nominalism' finds that in practice the construction of resemblance classes is hard
[Armstrong]
|
|
4439
|
'Resemblance Nominalism' says properties are resemblances between classes of particulars
[Armstrong]
|
|
4432
|
'Concept Nominalism' says a 'universal' property is just a mental concept applied to lots of things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4431
|
'Predicate Nominalism' says that a 'universal' property is just a predicate applied to lots of things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4433
|
Concept and predicate nominalism miss out some predicates, and may be viciously regressive
[Armstrong]
|
|
4436
|
'Class Nominalism' may explain properties if we stick to 'natural' sets, and ignore random ones
[Armstrong]
|
|
4434
|
'Class Nominalism' says that properties or kinds are merely membership of a set (e.g. of white things)
[Armstrong]
|
|
4435
|
'Class Nominalism' cannot explain co-extensive properties, or sets with random members
[Armstrong]
|
|
4437
|
'Mereological Nominalism' sees whiteness as a huge white object consisting of all the white things
[Armstrong]
|
|
4438
|
'Mereological Nominalism' may work for whiteness, but it doesn't seem to work for squareness
[Armstrong]
|
|
4444
|
One moderate nominalist view says that properties and relations exist, but they are particulars
[Armstrong]
|
|
4445
|
If properties and relations are particulars, there is still the problem of how to classify and group them
[Armstrong]
|
|
4446
|
It is claimed that some universals are not exemplified by any particular, so must exist separately
[Armstrong]
|
|
4448
|
Should we decide which universals exist a priori (through words), or a posteriori (through science)?
[Armstrong]
|