21 ideas
10928 | Maybe we can quantify modally if the objects are intensional, but it seems unlikely [Quine] |
10925 | Failure of substitutivity shows that a personal name is not purely referential [Quine] |
10926 | Quantifying into referentially opaque contexts often produces nonsense [Quine] |
17453 | The meaning of a number isn't just the numerals leading up to it [Heck] |
17457 | A basic grasp of cardinal numbers needs an understanding of equinumerosity [Heck] |
17448 | In counting, numerals are used, not mentioned (as objects that have to correlated) [Heck] |
17455 | Is counting basically mindless, and independent of the cardinality involved? [Heck] |
17456 | Counting is the assignment of successively larger cardinal numbers to collections [Heck] |
17450 | Understanding 'just as many' needn't involve grasping one-one correspondence [Heck] |
17451 | We can know 'just as many' without the concepts of equinumerosity or numbers [Heck] |
17459 | Frege's Theorem explains why the numbers satisfy the Peano axioms [Heck] |
17454 | Children can use numbers, without a concept of them as countable objects [Heck] |
17449 | We can understand cardinality without the idea of one-one correspondence [Heck] |
17458 | Equinumerosity is not the same concept as one-one correspondence [Heck] |
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] |
22908 | When one element contains the grounds of the other, the first one is prior in time [Leibniz] |