more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 9017

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 12. Denial of Properties ]

Full Idea

Predicates are not names; predicates are the other parties to predication.

Gist of Idea

Predicates are not names; predicates are the other parties to predication

Source

Willard Quine (Philosophy of Logic [1970], Ch.2)

Book Ref

Quine,Willard: 'Philosophy of Logic' [Prentice-Hall 1970], p.27


A Reaction

Does a wife only exist as party to a marriage? There's something missing here. We are taking predication to be primitive, but we then seem to single out one part of the process - the object - while ignoring the remainder. What are Quinean objects?


The 18 ideas with the same theme [rejection of the category of properties]:

Accidents are not parts of bodies (like blood in a cloth); they have accidents as things have a size [Hobbes]
We realise that properties are sensations of the feeling subject, not part of the thing [Nietzsche]
Russell can't attribute existence to properties [McGinn on Russell]
Because things can share attributes, we cannot individuate attributes clearly [Quine]
Predicates are not names; predicates are the other parties to predication [Quine]
There is no proper identity concept for properties, and it is hard to distinguish one from two [Quine]
Quine suggests that properties can be replaced with extensional entities like sets [Quine, by Shapiro]
Quine says that if second-order logic is to quantify over properties, that can be done in first-order predicate logic [Quine, by Benardete,JA]
Quine brought classes into semantics to get rid of properties [Quine, by McGinn]
Don't analyse 'red is a colour' as involving properties. Say 'all red things are coloured things' [Quine, by Orenstein]
Very nominalistic philosophers deny properties, though scientists accept them [Putnam]
Redness is not a property as it is not mind-independent [Ellis]
Field presumes properties can be eliminated from science [Field,H, by Szabó]
If possible worlds are needed to define properties, maybe we should abandon properties [Scruton]
Nominalists ask why we should postulate properties at all [Mellor/Oliver]
Fundamental physics seems to suggest there are no such things as properties [Maudlin]
Does the knowledge of each property require an infinity of accompanying knowledge? [Macdonald,C]
We can reduce properties to true formulas [Halbach/Leigh]