more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 8773

[filed under theme 18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 8. Abstractionism Critique ]

Full Idea

The way counting is learned is wholly contrary to abstractionist preconceptions, because the series of numerals has to be learned before it can be applied.

Gist of Idea

Abstractionists can't explain counting, because it must precede experience of objects

Source

Peter Geach (Mental Acts: their content and their objects [1957], §8)

Book Ref

Geach,Peter: 'Mental Acts: Their content and their objects' [RKP 1971], p.30

A Reaction

You might learn to parrot the names of numbers, but you could hardly know what they meant if you couldn't count anything. See Idea 3907. I would have thought that individuating objects must logically and pedagogically precede counting.

Related Idea

Idea 3907 Could you be intellectually acquainted with numbers, but unable to count objects? [Scruton]

The 28 ideas with the same theme [reasons to reject the abstractionist explanation]:

9075 If health happened to be white, the science of health would not study whiteness [Aristotle]
15385 Abelard's problem is the purely singular aspects of things won't account for abstraction [Panaccio on Abelard]
9096 The mind must produce by its own power an image of the individual species [Aquinas]
8638 Thomae's idea of abstract from peculiarities gives a general concept, and leaves the peculiarities [Frege on Thomae]
9979 Dedekind has a conception of abstraction which is not psychologistic [Dedekind, by Tait]
11846 If we abstract the difference between two houses, they don't become the same house [Frege]
9588 Number-abstraction somehow makes things identical without changing them! [Frege]
5816 Frege said concepts were abstract entities, not mental entities [Frege, by Putnam]
9819 Psychologism blunders in focusing on concept-formation instead of delineating the concepts [Dummett on Husserl]
9851 Husserl wanted to keep a shadowy remnant of abstracted objects, to correlate them [Dummett on Husserl]
10733 The abstractionist cannot explain 'some' and 'not' [Geach]
10734 Only a judgement can distinguish 'striking' from 'being struck' [Geach]
8771 'Or' and 'not' are not to be found in the sensible world, or even in the world of inner experience [Geach]
8772 We can't acquire number-concepts by extracting the number from the things being counted [Geach]
8773 Abstractionists can't explain counting, because it must precede experience of objects [Geach]
8774 The numbers don't exist in nature, so they cannot have been abstracted from there into our languages [Geach]
8778 Blind people can use colour words like 'red' perfectly intelligently [Geach]
8777 If 'black' and 'cat' can be used in the absence of such objects, how can such usage be abstracted? [Geach]
8779 We can form two different abstract concepts that apply to a single unified experience [Geach]
9833 To abstract from spoons (to get the same number as the forks), the spoons must be indistinguishable too [Dummett]
8165 To 'abstract from' is a logical process, as opposed to the old mental view [Dummett]
16289 We can't account for an abstraction as 'from' something if the something doesn't exist [Lewis]
9073 Abstraction from an ambiguous concept like 'mole' will define them as the same [Barnes,J]
9074 Abstraction cannot produce the concept of a 'game', as there is no one common feature [Barnes,J]
9072 Defining concepts by abstractions will collect together far too many attributes from entities [Barnes,J]
9146 After abstraction all numbers seem identical, so only 0 and 1 will exist! [Fine,K]
9972 Why should abstraction from two equipollent sets lead to the same set of 'pure units'? [Tait]
9980 If abstraction produces power sets, their identity should imply identity of the originals [Tait]