14 ideas
10928 | Maybe we can quantify modally if the objects are intensional, but it seems unlikely [Quine] |
8755 | Maddy replaces pure sets with just objects and perceived sets of objects [Maddy, by Shapiro] |
10925 | Failure of substitutivity shows that a personal name is not purely referential [Quine] |
10926 | Quantifying into referentially opaque contexts often produces nonsense [Quine] |
10718 | A natural number is a property of sets [Maddy, by Oliver] |
8756 | Intuition doesn't support much mathematics, and we should question its reliability [Maddy, by Shapiro] |
17733 | We know mind-independent mathematical truths through sets, which rest on experience [Maddy, by Jenkins] |
10930 | Quantification into modal contexts requires objects to have an essence [Quine] |
14645 | To be necessarily greater than 7 is not a trait of 7, but depends on how 7 is referred to [Quine] |
9201 | Whether 9 is necessarily greater than 7 depends on how '9' is described [Quine, by Fine,K] |
10927 | Necessity only applies to objects if they are distinctively specified [Quine] |
9203 | We can't quantify in modal contexts, because the modality depends on descriptions, not objects [Quine, by Fine,K] |
10931 | We can't say 'necessarily if x is in water then x dissolves' if we can't quantify modally [Quine] |
5994 | Is the cosmos open or closed, mechanical or teleological, alive or inanimate, and created or eternal? [Robinson,TM, by PG] |