The identity of argument-places

Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (3):335-354 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Argument-places play an important role in our dealing with relations. However, that does not mean that argument-places should be taken as primitive entities. It is possible to give an account of relations in which argument-places play no role. But if argument-places are not basic, then what can we say about their identity? Can they, for example, be reconstructed in set theory with appropriate urelements? In this article, we show that for some relations, argument-places cannot be modeled in a neutral way in V[A], the cumulative hierarchy with basic ingredients of the relation as urelements. We argue that a natural way to conceive of argument-places is to identify them with abstract, structureless points of a derivative structure exemplified by positional frames. In case the relation has symmetry, these points may be indiscernible

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The identity of argument-places.L. E. O. Joop - 2008 - Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (3):335-354.
Modeling relations.Joop Leo - 2008 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (4):353 - 385.
Weintraub’s response to Williamson’s coin flip argument.Matthew W. Parker - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (3):1-21.
The Identity Problem for Realist Structuralism.J. Keranen - 2001 - Philosophia Mathematica 9 (3):308--330.
Hypercomparatives.Adam Morton - 1997 - Synthese 111 (1):97-114.
First- and second-order logic of mass terms.Peter Roeper - 2004 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (3):261-297.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
67 (#314,990)

6 months
4 (#1,247,585)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joop Leo
Utrecht University

Citations of this work

Relations.Fraser MacBride - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Collective Abstraction.Jon Erling Litland - 2022 - Philosophical Review 131 (4):453-497.
Relational Complexes.Joop Leo - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):357-390.
A Tractarian Universe.Albert Visser - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (3):519-545.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology.Stewart Shapiro - 2000 - Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):120-123.
The limits of abstraction.Kit Fine - 2002 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Matthias Schirn.
Neutral relations.Kit Fine - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (1):1-33.
Structuralism and metaphysics.Charles Parsons - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):56--77.
Cantorian Abstraction.Kit Fine - 1998 - Journal of Philosophy 95 (12):599-634.

View all 7 references / Add more references