17 ideas
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| 17813 | Löwenheim-Skolem says any theory with a true interpretation has a model in the natural numbers [White,NP] |
| 17812 | Finite cardinalities don't need numbers as objects; numerical quantifiers will do [White,NP] |
| 16648 | Accidents must have formal being, if they are principles of real action, and of mental action and thought [Duns Scotus] |
| 15386 | If only the singular exists, science is impossible, as that relies on true generalities [Duns Scotus, by Panaccio] |
| 15387 | If things were singular they would only differ numerically, but horse and tulip differ more than that [Duns Scotus, by Panaccio] |
| 16632 | We distinguish one thing from another by contradiction, because this is, and that is not [Duns Scotus] |
| 13094 | The haecceity is the featureless thing which gives ultimate individuality to a substance [Duns Scotus, by Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 16770 | It is absurd that there is no difference between a genuinely unified thing, and a mere aggregate [Duns Scotus] |
| 10919 | What prevents a stone from being divided into parts which are still the stone? [Duns Scotus] |
| 16768 | Two things are different if something is true of one and not of the other [Duns Scotus] |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |