|
18767
|
Free logics has terms that do not designate real things, and even empty domains [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Free logics say 1) singular terms are allowed that do not designate anything that exists; sometimes 2) is added: the domain of discourse is allowed to be empty. Logics with both conditions are called 'universally free logics'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I really like the sound of this, and aim to investigate it. Karel Lambert's writings are the starting point. Maybe the domain of logic is our concepts, rather than things in the world, in which case free logic sounds fine.
|
|
18771
|
Stop calling ∃ the 'existential' quantifier, read it as 'there is...', and range over all entities [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Ontological quantifiers might just as well range over all the entities needed for the semantics. ...The minimal way would be to just stop calling '∃' an 'existential quantifier', and always read it as 'there is...' rather than 'there exists...'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.6)
|
|
A reaction:
There is no right answer here, but it seems to be the strategy adopted by most logicians, and the majority of modern metaphysicians. They just allow abstracta, and even fictions, to 'exist', while not being fussy what it means. Big mistake!
|
|
10502
|
We can rise by degrees through abstraction, with higher levels representing more things [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
I can start with a triangle, and rise by degrees to all straight-lined figures and to extension itself. The lower degree will include the higher degree. Since the higher degree is less determinate, it can represent more things.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This attempts to explain the generalising ability of abstraction cited in Idea 10501. If you take a complex object and eliminate features one by one, it can only 'represent' more particulars; it could hardly represent fewer.
|
|
18768
|
We cannot pick out a thing and deny its existence, but we can say a concept doesn't correspond [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Parmenides was correct - one cannot speak of that which is not, even to say that it is not. But one can speak of concepts and say of them that they do not correspond to anything real.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[This summarises Alonso Church, who was developing Frege] This sounds like the right thing to say about non-existence, but then the same principle must apply to assertions of existence, which will also be about concepts and not things.
|
|
18765
|
Individuation was a problem for medievals, then Leibniz, then Frege, then Wittgenstein (somewhat) [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The medieval philosophers and then Leibniz were keen on finding 'principles of individuation', and the idea appears again in Frege, to be taken up in some respects by Wittgenstein.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.6)
|
|
A reaction:
I take a rather empirical approach to this supposed problem, and suggest we break 'individuation' down into its component parts, and then just drop the word. Discussions of principles of individuations strike me as muddled. Wiggins and Lowe today.
|
|
18764
|
The notion of 'property' is unclear for a logical version of the Identity of Indiscernibles [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the Identity of Indiscernibles, one speaks about properties, and the notion of a property is by no means clearly fixed and formalized in modern symbolic logic.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.5)
|
|
A reaction:
The unclarity of 'property' is a bee in my philosophical bonnet, in speech, and in metaphysics, as well as in logic. It may well be the central problem in our attempts to understand the world in general terms. He cites intensional logic as promising.
|
|
16784
|
Forms make things distinct and explain the properties, by pure form, or arrangement of parts [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The form is what renders a thing such and distinguishes it from others, whether it is a being really distinct from the matter, according to the Schools, or whether it is only the arrangement of the parts. By this form one must explain its properties.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], III.18 p240), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 27.6
|
|
A reaction:
If we ask 'what explains the properties of this thing' it is hard to avoid coming up with something that might be called the 'form'. Note that they allow either substantial or corpuscularian forms. It is hard to disagree with the idea.
|
|
10501
|
A triangle diagram is about all triangles, if some features are ignored [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
If I draw an equilateral triangle on a piece of paper, ..I shall have an idea of only a single triangle. But if I ignore all the particular circumstances and focus on the three equal lines, I will be able to represent all equilateral triangles.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] They observed that we grasp composites through their parts, and now that we can grasp generalisations through particulars, both achieved by the psychological act of abstraction, thus showing its epistemological power.
|