more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 7700

[filed under theme 7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 4. Abstract Existence ]

Full Idea

Let any man try to conceive a triangle in general, which is neither Isoceles nor Scalenum, nor has any particular length or proportion of sides; and he will perceive the absurdity of all the scholastic notions with regard to abstraction and general ideas.

Clarification

Isoceles and Scalene are particular shapes of triangle

Gist of Idea

We can't think about the abstract idea of triangles, but only of particular triangles

Source

David Hume (Enquiry Conc Human Understanding [1748], XII.II.122)

Book Ref

Hume,David: 'Enquiries Conc. Human Understanding, Morals', ed/tr. Selby-Bigge/Nidditch [OUP 1975], p.155


A Reaction

I think there is a basic error in this. I admit that I can only imagine a particular triangle, but it doesn't follow that I am thinking about one triangle. Ontology/epistemology confusion. I picture a shape while believing the shape to be irrelevant.


The 13 ideas with the same theme [existing non-causally and outside space-time]:

The incommensurability of the diagonal always exists, and so it is not in time [Aristotle]
General and universal are not real entities, but useful inventions of the mind, concerning words or ideas [Locke]
Abstract ideas are impossible [Berkeley]
We can't think about the abstract idea of triangles, but only of particular triangles [Hume]
If abstracta are non-mental, quarks are abstracta, and yet chess and God's thoughts are mental [Rosen on Frege]
The equator is imaginary, but not fictitious; thought is needed to recognise it [Frege]
Internal questions about abstractions are trivial, and external ones deeply problematic [Carnap, by Szabó]
Points in Euclidean space are abstract objects, but not introduced by abstraction [Fine,K]
Postulationism says avoid abstract objects by giving procedures that produce truth [Fine,K]
Abstracts cannot be identified with sets [Fine,K]
Just as we introduced complex numbers, so we introduced sums and temporal parts [Fine,K]
Nominalists deny abstract objects, because we can have no reason to believe in their existence [Lowe]
Some abstract things have a beginning and end, so may exist in time (though not space) [Swoyer]