Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 28 (4):289 - 294 (1975)
|Abstract||The pair democreteanism-Platonism (nothing/something is outside space-Time) differs from the pair nominalism-Realism (universals are/are not nameable entities). Nominalism need not be democretean, And democreateanism is nominalist only if conceptualism is rejected. Putnam's critique of nominalism is thus invalid. Quine's theory is democretean-When-Possible: quine is also a minimalist platonist. Conceptualists and realists agree that universals exist but not as physical objects. Nominalists accept universals only as "facons de parler"|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan Willem Wieland (2008). What Problem of Universals? Philosophica 81 (81):7-21.
Howard Peacock (2009). What's Wrong with Ostrich Nominalism? Philosophical Papers 38 (2):183-217.
Charles Landesman (1971). The Problem of Universals. New York,Basic Books.
Lloyd Gerson (2004). Platonism and the Invention of the Problem of Universals. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 86 (3):233-256.
Fraser MacBride (2002). The Problem of Universals and the Limits of Truth-Making. Philosophical Papers 31 (1):27-37.
Riin Sirkel (2011). Alexander of Aphrodisias's Account of Universals and its Problems. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (3):297-314.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2000). What is the Problem of Universals? Mind 109 (434):255-273.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #44,850 of 738,079 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 738,079 )
How can I increase my downloads?