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|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time.Theodore Sider - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity.Scott Soames - 2002 - Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Facticity of Explanation and its Consequences.Yvonne Raley - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):123 – 135.
Indispensability Argument and Anti-Realism in Philosophy of Mathematics.Feng Ye - 2007 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (4):614-628.
Can the Eleatic Principle Be Justified?Mark Colyvan - 1998 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):313 - 335.
Getting in Touch with Numbers: Intuition and Mathematical Platonism.Colin Cheyne - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1):111-125.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads71 ( #72,860 of 2,158,136 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #65,193 of 2,158,136 )
How can I increase my downloads?