Philosophia Mathematica 11 (1):67-81 (2003)
|Abstract||When viewed as the most comprehensive theory of collections, set theory leaves no room for classes. But the vocabulary of classes, it is argued, provides us with compact and, sometimes, irreplaceable formulations of largecardinal hypotheses that are prominent in much very important and very interesting work in set theory. Fortunately, George Boolos has persuasively argued that plural quantification over the universe of all sets need not commit us to classes. This paper suggests that we retain the vocabulary of classes, but explain that what appears to be singular reference to classes is, in fact, covert plural reference to sets.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2005). Denoting Concepts, Reference, and the Logic of Names, Classes as Many, Groups, and Plurals? Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (2):135 - 179.
Ralf-Dieter Schindler (1993). Prädikative Klassen. Erkenntnis 39 (2):209 - 241.
Enrico Martino & Massimiliano Carrara (2010). To Be is to Be the Object of a Possible Act of Choice. Studia Logica 96 (2):289-313.
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2009). Mass Nouns in a Logic of Classes as Many. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (3):343 - 361.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1980). Tarski and Proper Classes. Analysis 40 (4):6-11.
Philippe De Rouilhan (2002). On What There Are. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200.
John L. Bell (2000). Sets and Classes as Many. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (6):585-601.
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2002). On the Logic of Classes as Many. Studia Logica 70 (3):303-338.
Helen Morris Cartwright (1993). On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory. Synthese 96 (2):201 - 254.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads60 ( #15,931 of 549,017 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,706 of 549,017 )
How can I increase my downloads?