Philosophia Mathematica 11 (1):67-81 (2003)
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A Neglected Resolution of Russell’s Paradox of Propositions.Gabriel Uzquiano - 2015 - Review of Symbolic Logic 8 (2):328-344.
From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being.Joshua Rasmussen - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (2):183 - 200.
The Groundedness Approach to Class Theory.Jönne Kriener - 2014 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 57 (2):244-273.
Similar books and articles
Denoting Concepts, Reference, and the Logic of Names, Classes as Many, Groups, and Plurals.Nino Cocchiarella - 2005 - Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (2):135 - 179.
On What There Are.Philippe De Rouilhan - 2002 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200.
On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory.Helen Morris Cartwright - 1993 - Synthese 96 (2):201 - 254.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads109 ( #46,121 of 2,177,979 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #166,489 of 2,177,979 )
How can I increase my downloads?