8506
|
Particulars and properties are distinguishable, but too close to speak of a relation [Armstrong]
|
|
Full Idea:
I favour the Realist view that while we can distinguish the particularity of a particular from its properties, but the two 'factors' are too intimately together to speak of a relation between them.
|
|
From:
David M. Armstrong (Against 'Ostrich Nominalism' [1980], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Is Armstrong being a bit of an ostrich here? We could talk of part-whole relationships, or internal relations, or set membership, or coinciding objects, or bundles. We certainly ought to have a go. Armstrong approaches Quine here!
|
10415
|
Properties make round squares and round triangles distinct, unlike exemplification [Zalta, by Swoyer]
|
|
Full Idea:
On Zalta's view, properties with the same encoding extensions are identical, but may be distinct with the same exemplification extension. So the properties of being a round square and a round triangle are distinct, but with the same exemplification.
|
|
From:
report of Edward N. Zalta (Abstract Objects:intro to Axiomatic Metaphysics [1983]) by Chris Swoyer - Properties
|
|
A reaction:
(For Zalta's view, see Idea 10414) I'm not sure about 'encoding' (cf. Hodes's use of the word), but the idea that an abstract object is just a bunch of possible properties (assuming properties have prior availability) seems promising.
|
16369
|
There is a single file per object, memorised, reactivated, consolidated and expanded [Papineau, by Recanati]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Papineau there is just one file, which is initialised on the first encounter with the object, stored in memory, reactivated on further encounters, and consolidated with familiarity. Accumulation of information shows it is the same file.
|
|
From:
report of David Papineau (Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts [2006]) by François Recanati - Mental Files 7.2
|
|
A reaction:
Recanati attempts to refute this view, defending a more complex taxonomy of files. I'm sympathetic to Papineau, as distinct shift in file type doesn't sound very plausible. Simplicity suggests Papineau as a better starting-point.
|