|
13453
|
Perhaps second-order quantifications cover concepts of objects, rather than plain objects [Rayo/Uzquiano]
|
|
Full Idea:
If one thought of second-order quantification as quantification over first-level Fregean concepts [note: one under which only objects fall], talk of domains might be regimented as talk of first-level concepts, which are not objects.
|
|
From:
Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
That is (I take it), don't quantify over objects, but quantify over concepts, but only those under which known objects fall. One might thus achieve naïve comprehension without paradoxes. Sound like fun.
|
|
14234
|
If you only refer to objects one at a time, you need sets in order to refer to a plurality [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'singularist', who refers to objects one at a time, must resort to the language of sets in order to replace plural reference to members ('Henry VIII's wives') by singular reference to a set ('the set of Henry VIII's wives').
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
A simple and illuminating point about the motivation for plural reference. Null sets and singletons give me the creeps, so I would personally prefer to avoid set theory when dealing with ontology.
|
|
14237
|
We can use plural language to refer to the set theory domain, to avoid calling it a 'set' [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Plurals earn their keep in set theory, to answer Skolem's remark that 'in order to treat of 'sets', we must begin with 'domains' that are constituted in a certain way'. We can speak in the plural of 'the objects', not a 'domain' of objects.
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[Skolem 1922:291 in van Heijenoort] Zermelo has said that the domain cannot be a set, because every set belongs to it.
|