On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> ...
> Quine was a strict nominalist. (01)
Not that it matters to your main point here, but it sort of depends on
what you mean by a nominalist. If you mean someone who rejects the
existence of classic intensional universals like Wisdom and Redness,
then yes, Quine was a nominalist. If, however, you mean someone who
rejects the existence of all abstract entities across the board, then
Quine was no nominalist, as he argued that quantification over
mathematical objects (specifically, sets) is indispensable to science. (02)
-chris (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|