Ideas from 'Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction'' by Kit Fine [2005], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Philosophical Studies' (ed/tr -) [- ,]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


2. Reason / D. Definition / 2. Aims of Definition
Definitions concern how we should speak, not how things are
                        Full Idea: Our concern in giving a definition is not to say how things are by to say how we wish to speak
                        From: Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.310)
                        A reaction: This sounds like an acceptable piece of wisdom which arises out of analytical and linguistic philosophy. It puts a damper on the Socratic dream of using definition of reveal the nature of reality.
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 5. Definitions of Number / d. Hume's Principle
If Hume's Principle can define numbers, we needn't worry about its truth
                        Full Idea: Neo-Fregeans have thought that Hume's Principle, and the like, might be definitive of number and therefore not subject to the usual epistemological worries over its truth.
                        From: Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.310)
                        A reaction: This seems to be the underlying dream of logicism - that arithmetic is actually brought into existence by definitions, rather than by truths derived from elsewhere. But we must be able to count physical objects, as well as just counting numbers.
Hume's Principle is either adequate for number but fails to define properly, or vice versa
                        Full Idea: The fundamental difficulty facing the neo-Fregean is to either adopt the predicative reading of Hume's Principle, defining numbers, but inadequate, or the impredicative reading, which is adequate, but not really a definition.
                        From: Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.312)
                        A reaction: I'm not sure I understand this, but the general drift is the difficulty of building a system which has been brought into existence just by definition.
18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 7. Abstracta by Equivalence
An abstraction principle should not 'inflate', producing more abstractions than objects
                        Full Idea: If an abstraction principle is going to be acceptable, then it should not 'inflate', i.e. it should not result in there being more abstracts than there are objects. By this mark Hume's Principle will be acceptable, but Frege's Law V will not.
                        From: Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.307)
                        A reaction: I take this to be motivated by my own intuition that abstract concepts had better be rooted in the world, or they are not worth the paper they are written on. The underlying idea this sort of abstraction is that it is 'shared' between objects.