display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
7679 | Ontology is the same as the conceptual foundations of logic [Jacquette] |
Full Idea: The principles of pure philosophical ontology are indistinguishable ... from the conceptual foundations of logic. | |
From: Dale Jacquette (Ontology [2002], Pref) | |
A reaction: I would take Russell to be an originator of this view. If the young Wittgenstein showed that the foundations of logic are simply conventional (truth tables), this seems to make ontology conventional too, which sounds very odd indeed (to me). |
3303 | For anti-realists there are no natural distinctions between objects [Dummett, by Benardete,JA] |
Full Idea: Dummett says that anti-realism offers us a picture of reality as an amorphous lump not yet articulated into discrete objects. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (works [1970]) by José A. Benardete - Metaphysics: the logical approach Ch.2 | |
A reaction: This might be called 'weak' anti-realism, where 'strong' anti-realism is the view that reality is quite unknowable, and possibly non-existent. |
7678 | Ontology must include the minimum requirements for our semantics [Jacquette] |
Full Idea: The entities included in a theoretical ontology are those minimally required for an adequate philosophical semantics. ...These are the objects that we say exist, to which we are ontologically committed. | |
From: Dale Jacquette (Ontology [2002], Pref) | |
A reaction: Worded with exquisite care! He does not say that ontology is reducible to semantics (which is a silly idea). We could still be committed, as in a ghost story, to existence of some 'nameless thing'. Things utterly beyond our ken might exist. |