David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 76 (3):249-265 (2010)
This article discusses the argument we cannot have knowledge of abstract entities because they are not part of the causal order. The claim of this article is that the argument fails because of equivocation. Assume that the “causal order” is concerned with contingent facts involving time and space. Even if the existence of abstract entities is not contingent and does not involve time or space it does not follow that no truths about abstract entities are contingent or involve time or space. I argue that it is the latter which is required to obtain the desired conclusion
|Keywords||Platonism abstract entities|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Yvonne Raley (2007). The Facticity of Explanation and its Consequences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):123 – 135.
Feng Ye (2007). Indispensability Argument and Anti-Realism in Philosophy of Mathematics. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (4):614-628.
Roy A. Sorensen (2005). The Ethics of Empty Worlds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (3):349 – 356.
Stathis Psillos (2011). Living with the Abstract: Realism and Models. Synthese 180 (1):3 - 17.
Mark Colyvan (1998). Can the Eleatic Principle Be Justified? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):313 - 335.
Colin Cheyne (1997). Getting in Touch with Numbers: Intuition and Mathematical Platonism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1):111-125.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads38 ( #50,199 of 1,140,380 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #32,045 of 1,140,380 )
How can I increase my downloads?