more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 8570
[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / E. Nominalism / 5. Class Nominalism
]
Full Idea
To have a property is to be a member of a class, usually a class of things. (Note: this resembles the doctrine of Class Nominalism, but I do not claim to solve the One Over Many problem by this means, far from it).
Gist of Idea
To have a property is to be a member of a class, usually a class of things
Source
David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop')
Book Ref
'Properties', ed/tr. Mellor,D.H. /Oliver,A [OUP 1997], p.189
A Reaction
Lewis remains neutral about the traditional question of whether universals exist. What does he mean by "is" in his assertion? Identity, predication or class membership? I think Lewis is open to many of the objections to Class Nominalism.
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]
|