|
10152
|
Set theory and logic are fairy tales, but still worth studying [Tarski]
|
|
Full Idea:
People have asked me, 'How can you, a nominalist, do work in set theory and in logic, which are theories about things you do not believe in?' ...I believe that there is a value even in fairy tales and the study of fairy tales.
|
|
From:
Alfred Tarski (talk [1965]), quoted by Feferman / Feferman - Alfred Tarski: life and logic
|
|
A reaction:
This is obviously an oversimplification. I don't think for a moment that Tarski literally believed that the study of fairy tales had as much value as the study of logic. Why do we have this particular logic, and not some other?
|
|
18431
|
Internal relations combine some tropes into a nucleus, which bears the non-essential tropes [Simons, by Edwards]
|
|
Full Idea:
Simons's 'nuclear' option blends features of the substratum and bundle theories. First we have tropes collected by virtue of their internal relations, forming the essential kernel or nucleus. This nucleus then bears the non-essential tropes.
|
|
From:
report of Peter Simons (Particulars in Particular Clothing [1994], p.567) by Douglas Edwards - Properties 3.5
|
|
A reaction:
[compression of Edwards's summary] This strikes me as being a remarkably good theory. I am not sure of the ontological status of properties, such that they can (unaided) combine to make part of an object. What binds the non-essentials?
|