|
6343
|
For Russell, both propositions and facts are arrangements of objects, so obviously they correspond [Horwich on Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Given Russell's notion of a proposition, as an arrangement of objects and properties, it is hard to see how there could be any difference at all between such a proposition and the fact corresponding to it, since they each involve the same arrangement.
|
|
From:
comment on Bertrand Russell (On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood [1910]) by Paul Horwich - Truth (2nd edn) Ch.7.35
|
|
A reaction:
This seems a little unfair, given that Russell (in 1912) uses the notion now referred to as 'congruence', so that the correspondence is not in the objects and properties, but in how they are 'ordered', which may differ between proposition and fact.
|
|
12215
|
The existence of numbers is not a matter of identities, but of constituents of the world [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
On saying that a particular number exists, we are not saying that there is something identical to it, but saying something about its status as a genuine constituent of the world.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.168)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Frege's criterion of identity, which is to be an element in an identity relation, such as x = y. Fine suggests that this only gives a 'trivial' notion of existence, when he is interested in a 'thick' sense of 'exists'.
|
|
12209
|
The indispensability argument shows that nature is non-numerical, not the denial of numbers [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Arguments such as the dispensability argument are attempting to show something about the essentially non-numerical character of physical reality, rather than something about the nature or non-existence of the numbers themselves.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.160)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Hartry Field. If Quine was right, and we only believe in numbers because of our science, and then Field shows our science doesn't need it, then Fine would be wrong. Quine must be wrong, as well as Field.
|
|
12214
|
'Exists' is a predicate, not a quantifier; 'electrons exist' is like 'electrons spin' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The most natural reading of 'electrons exist' is that there are electrons while, on our view, the proper reading should be modeled on 'electrons spin', meaning every electron spins. 'Exists' should be treated as a predicate rather than a quantifier.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.167)
|
|
A reaction:
So existence IS a predicate (message to Kant). Dunno. Electrons have to exist in order to spin, but they don't have to exist in order to exist. But they don't have to exist to be 'dead'.
|
|
12217
|
For ontology we need, not internal or external views, but a view from outside reality [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
We need to straddle both of Carnap's internal and external views. It is only by standing outside of reality that we are able to occupy a standpoint from which the constitution of reality can be adequately described.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 4840! I thoroughly approve of this idea, which almost amounts to a Credo for the modern metaphysician. Since we can think outside our room, or our country, or our era, or our solar system, I think we can do what Fine is demanding.
|
|
7534
|
In 1906, Russell decided that propositions did not, after all, exist [Russell, by Monk]
|
|
Full Idea:
With a characteristic readiness to abandon views that he had previously considered definitively correct, Russell declared in 1906 that there were, after all, no such 'things' as propositions. It is judgements that are true or false.
|
|
From:
report of Bertrand Russell (On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood [1910]) by Ray Monk - Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude Ch.6
|
|
A reaction:
Written 1906. Russell developed a 'multiple relation theory of judgement'. But if a judgement is an assessment of truth or falsehood, what is it that is being assessed?
|