Abstraction by recarving

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (3):327–338 (2001)
Abstract
Explains why Bob Hale's proposed notion of weak sense cannot explain the analyticity of Hume's principle as he claims. Argues that no other notion of the sort Hale wants could do the job either.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,449
External links
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
Similar books and articles
Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (2009). The Metaontology of Abstraction. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Bob Hale (2001). A Response to Potter and Smiley: Abstraction by Recarving. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (3):339–358.
Bob Hale (2000). Reals by Abstractiont. Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):100--123.
Bob Hale (2006). The Limits of Abstraction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (1):223–232.
Michael Potter & Timothy Smiley (2002). Recarving Content: Hale's Final Proposal. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (3):301–304.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

23 ( #76,802 of 1,102,629 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #47,112 of 1,102,629 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.