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]