more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 4435

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / E. Nominalism / 5. Class Nominalism ]

Full Idea

Class Nominalism cannot explain co-extensive properties (which qualify the same things), and also a random (non-natural) set has particulars with nothing in common, thus failing to capture an essential feature of a general property.

Gist of Idea

'Class Nominalism' cannot explain co-extensive properties, or sets with random members

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

These objections strike me as conclusive, since we can assign things to a set quite arbitrarily, so membership of a set may signify no shared property at all (except, say, 'owned by me', which is hardly a property).

The 17 ideas with the same theme [universals are classes of things]:

18442 You only know an attribute if you know what things have it [Quine]
8504 Quine aims to deal with properties by the use of eternal open sentences, or classes [Quine, by Devitt]
7970 Quine is committed to sets, but is more a Class Nominalist than a Platonist [Quine, by Macdonald,C]
8531 In most sets there is no property common to all the members [Armstrong]
18371 The class of similar things is much too big a truthmaker for the feature of a particular [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]
8550 Triangular and trilateral are coextensive, but different concepts; but powers and properties are the same [Shoemaker]
20339 Classes rarely share properties with their members - unlike universals and types [Wollheim]
15438 We can add a primitive natural/unnatural distinction to class nominalism [Lewis]
8570 To have a property is to be a member of a class, usually a class of things [Lewis]
8574 Class Nominalism and Resemblance Nominalism are pretty much the same [Lewis]
7032 Objects join sets because of properties; the property is not bestowed by set membership [Heil]
4233 If 'blueness' is a set of particulars, there is danger of circularity, or using universals, in identifying the set [Lowe]
4471 We should abandon the concept of a property since (unlike sets) their identity conditions are unclear [Moreland]
14597 Natural Class Nominalism says there are primitive classes of things resembling in one respect [Dorr]