|Indeterminacy, philosophy: An object is indeterminate if its linguistic description indicates fewer characteristics than a member of a (linguistic) community usually needs to distinguish the object from other objects. See also uncertainty of translation, vagueness, under-determinateness, inscrutability, determinateness._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.|
Books on Amazon
Indeterminacy/reference/Frege: "to refer to something indeterminate" is often rather: to refer indefinitely to something definite.
Geach: in (4), (7), or (9) it is not a definite reference and also not an indication. (?).
In Buridan the "appellatio" is highly obscure to a "ratio", but that is Frege's "odd meaning" too! (GeachVsFrege).
Suppositio confusa/Buridan: respectively the first sentences of the following pairs
Suppositio determinata: respectively the second:
(10) To see, I need an eye
(11) There is an eye that I need to see with it
(12) There was always a living man
(13) There is a man who has always been alive
This can easily be clarified in modern logic with quantifiers._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
|Link to abbreviations/authors|