Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'The Epistemology of Modality', 'On the Frame of Reference' and 'Nominalism'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

6 ideas

4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 3. Types of Set / c. Unit (Singleton) Sets
8956 What is a singleton set, if a set is meant to be a collection of objects? [Szabó]
     Full Idea: The relationship between an object and its singleton is puzzling. Our intuitive conception of a set is a collection of objects - what are we to make of a collection of a single object?
     From: Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 4.1)
     A reaction: The ontological problem seems to be the same as that of the empty set, and indeed the claim that a pair of entities is three things. For logicians the empty set is as real as a pet dog, but not for me.
5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 4. Substitutional Quantification
10009 Substitutional quantification is just a variant of Tarski's account [Wallace, by Baldwin]
     Full Idea: In a famous paper, Wallace argued that all interpretations of quantifiers (including the substitutional interpretation) are, in the end, variants of that proposed by Tarski (in 1936).
     From: report of Wallace, J (On the Frame of Reference [1970]) by Thomas Baldwin - Interpretations of Quantifiers
     A reaction: A significant-looking pointer. We must look elsewhere for Tarski's account, which will presumably subsume the objectual interpretation as well. The ontology of Tarski's account of truth is an enduring controversy.
7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 7. Abstract/Concrete / a. Abstract/concrete
8953 Abstract entities don't depend on their concrete entities ...but maybe on the totality of concrete things [Szabó]
     Full Idea: It is better not to include in the definition of abstract entities that they ontologically depend on their concrete correlates. Note: ..but they may depend on the totality of concreta; maybe 'the supervenience of the abstract' is part of ordinary thought.
     From: Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
     A reaction: [the quoted phrase is from Gideon Rosen] It certainly seems unlikely that the concept of the perfect hexagon depends on a perfect hexagon having existed. Human minds have intervened between the concrete and the abstract.
10. Modality / D. Knowledge of Modality / 4. Conceivable as Possible / a. Conceivable as possible
19440 How do you know you have conceived a thing deeply enough to assess its possibility? [Vaidya]
     Full Idea: The main issue with learning possibility from conceivability concerns how we can be confident that we have conceived things to the relevant level of depth required for the scenario to actually be a presentation or manifestation of a genuine possibility.
     From: Anand Vaidya (The Epistemology of Modality [2015], 1.2.2)
     A reaction: [He cites Van Inwagen 1998 for this idea] The point is that ignorant imagination can conceive of all sorts of absurd things which are seen to be impossible when enough information is available. We can hardly demand a criterion for this.
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 3. Abstraction by mind
8954 Geometrical circles cannot identify a circular paint patch, presumably because they lack something [Szabó]
     Full Idea: The vocabulary of geometry is sufficient to identify the circle, but could not be used to identify any circular paint patch. The reason must be that the circle lacks certain properties that can distinguish paint patches from one another.
     From: Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
     A reaction: I take this to be support for the traditional view, that abstractions are created by omitting some of the properties of physical objects. I take them to be fictional creations, reified by language, and not actual hidden entities that have been observed.
18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 5. Abstracta by Negation
8955 Abstractions are imperceptible, non-causal, and non-spatiotemporal (the third explaining the others) [Szabó]
     Full Idea: In current discussions, abstract entities are usually distinguished as 1) in principle imperceptible, 2) incapable of causal interaction, 3) not located in space-time. The first is often explained by the second, which is in turn explained by the third.
     From: Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
     A reaction: Szabó concludes by offering 3 as the sole criterion of abstraction. As Lewis points out, the Way of Negation for defining abstracta doesn't tell us very much. Courage may be non-spatiotemporal, but what about Alexander the Great's courage?