more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 8856
[filed under theme 10. Modality / D. Knowledge of Modality / 3. A Posteriori Necessary
]
Full Idea
Fifty years ago, Quine convinced everyone who cared that the argument for abstract objects, if there were going to be one, would have to be a posteriori in nature; an argument that numbers, for example, are indispensable entities for 'total science'.
Gist of Idea
Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori
Source
report of Willard Quine (On What There Is [1948], §1) by Stephen Yablo - Apriority and Existence
Book Ref
'New Essays on the A Priori', ed/tr. Boghossian,P /Peacocke,C [OUP 2000], p.196
A Reaction
This sets the scene for the modern debate on the a priori. The claim that abstractions are indispensable for a factual account of the physical world strikes me as highly implausible.
The
29 ideas
from 'On What There Is'
10241
|
For Quine, there is only one way to exist
[Quine, by Shapiro]
|
4064
|
The idea of a thing and the idea of existence are two sides of the same coin
[Quine, by Crane]
|
19277
|
Quine rests existence on bound variables, because he thinks singular terms can be analysed away
[Quine, by Hale]
|
12210
|
Quine's ontology is wrong; his question is scientific, and his answer is partly philosophical
[Fine,K on Quine]
|
8459
|
Fictional quantification has no ontology, so we study ontology through scientific theories
[Quine, by Orenstein]
|
16261
|
If commitment rests on first-order logic, we obviously lose the ontology concerning predication
[Maudlin on Quine]
|
4443
|
Quine has argued that predicates do not have any ontological commitment
[Quine, by Armstrong]
|
1619
|
There is an attempt to give a verificationist account of meaning, without the error of reducing everything to sensations
[Dennett on Quine]
|
19159
|
Quine relates predicates to their objects, by being 'true of' them
[Quine, by Davidson]
|
8455
|
Canonical notation needs quantification, variables and predicates, but not names
[Quine, by Orenstein]
|
8456
|
Quine extended Russell's defining away of definite descriptions, to also define away names
[Quine, by Orenstein]
|
8856
|
Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori
[Quine, by Yablo]
|
7698
|
If to be is to be the value of a variable, we must already know the values available
[Jacquette on Quine]
|
15402
|
There is no entity called 'redness', and that some things are red is ultimate and irreducible
[Quine]
|
1609
|
I do not believe there is some abstract entity called a 'meaning' which we can 'have'
[Quine]
|
1617
|
The word 'meaning' is only useful when talking about significance or about synonymy
[Quine]
|
1611
|
Names can be converted to descriptions, and Russell showed how to eliminate those
[Quine]
|
1610
|
To be is to be the value of a variable, which amounts to being in the range of reference of a pronoun
[Quine]
|
1612
|
Realism, conceptualism and nominalism in medieval universals reappear in maths as logicism, intuitionism and formalism
[Quine]
|
1613
|
Logicists cheerfully accept reference to bound variables and all sorts of abstract entities
[Quine]
|
1615
|
Intuitionism says classes are invented, and abstract entities are constructed from specified ingredients
[Quine]
|
1614
|
Conceptualism holds that there are universals but they are mind-made
[Quine]
|
1616
|
Formalism says maths is built of meaningless notations; these build into rules which have meaning
[Quine]
|
1618
|
We study bound variables not to know reality, but to know what reality language asserts
[Quine]
|
8496
|
What actually exists does not, of course, depend on language
[Quine]
|
8497
|
An ontology is like a scientific theory; we accept the simplest scheme that fits disorderly experiences
[Quine]
|
8498
|
Treating scattered sensations as single objects simplifies our understanding of experience
[Quine]
|
18209
|
We can never translate our whole language of objects into phenomenalism
[Quine]
|
12443
|
Can an unactualized possible have self-identity, and be distinct from other possibles?
[Quine]
|