Lexicon of Arguments

 

I 416
Existence/Quine: doubtful: "There are terms that...", "some of these propositions...", "there is something that he doubts...". - Meaningless: talking about two different meanings of "there is" for abstract and concrete objects, but of one single meaning of object.
>Meaning/Quine.
I 416
Theory: are isolated systems, mass point, infinitesimal size: each behavior is more typical, the closer you get to zero, therefore acceptable - but not approved in ontology. - Unlike geometrical object: Position of mass points had no meaning - therefore not individuable, no identity! (> Quine, Word and Object, 1960, § 52.)
I 465f
Ontology: in the end only words at all (names of objects) - but accpetance of ideal objects is no linguistic convention.
II 25
Ontology that consisted only of materials and bodies would be very vague - but precision is just a question of classification.
II 28
Numbers/Ontology: Numbers merely "facon de parler". - Higher classes are needed to replace numbers - otherwise there are only physical object.
VII (a) 15ff
Ontology/Quine: the phrase "To be is to be the value of a bound variable" does not decide between competing O. - We do not consider the variables to find out what there is! - The variable shows what a statement asserts - Problem: I cannot admit that there are things that the other one accepts and I do not. Deviations in the O involve those in the conceptual scheme - the upper links of the object language can be shared by counterparties and make discussion of language possible. >Semantic ascent/Quine.
VII (f) 107
Ontology/Translation/Quine: we cannot find ontological definitions for totally foreign languages.
VII (g) 132
Ontology/Quine: a theory may even include entities that are indefinable in the same theory.
XII 38
Economical ontology/Quine: predicates instead of properties - sentences instead of propositions.
>Predicates/Quine, >Sentences/Quine.
XII 75ff
Pythagorean Ontology/Pythagorism/Quine: a pythagorean ontology consists only of objects of one type, for example numbers or quantities or bodies. One could get these with Loewenheim. Quine: that should be avoided. Problem: after reduction an infinite range might still remain. Some numbers lose their number property but we do not know which. Solution: Ontological Relativity: it is useless to speak of the ontology of a theory in absolute terms including that "all are numbers". Solution: relativistic theory. Just as there is no absolute location or absolute speed. Problem: we need to specify a proxy function for a reduction and that is not possible with the axiom of choice (the strong form of Loewenheim). - A proxy function from above-countable to countable range is impossible because of the lack reversibility.