more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


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 16 ideas from 'Mental Acts: their content and their objects'

You can't define real mental states in terms of behaviour that never happens [Geach]
Beliefs aren't tied to particular behaviours [Geach]
If someone has aphasia but can still play chess, they clearly have concepts [Geach]
'Abstractionism' is acquiring a concept by picking out one experience amongst a group [Geach]
'Or' and 'not' are not to be found in the sensible world, or even in the world of inner experience [Geach]
We can't acquire number-concepts by extracting the number from the things being counted [Geach]
Abstractionists can't explain counting, because it must precede experience of objects [Geach]
The numbers don't exist in nature, so they cannot have been abstracted from there into our languages [Geach]
A big flea is a small animal, so 'big' and 'small' cannot be acquired by abstraction [Geach]
We cannot learn relations by abstraction, because their converse must be learned too [Geach]
Blind people can use colour words like 'red' perfectly intelligently [Geach]
If 'black' and 'cat' can be used in the absence of such objects, how can such usage be abstracted? [Geach]
We can form two different abstract concepts that apply to a single unified experience [Geach]
Attributes are functions, not objects; this distinguishes 'square of 2' from 'double of 2' [Geach]
The mind does not lift concepts from experience; it creates them, and then applies them [Geach]
Being 'the same' is meaningless, unless we specify 'the same X' [Geach]