Quine on Abstract Objects

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Quine on Abstract Objects

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

To counter Peter Holmes insistence abstract objects do not exist as real things, here is Quine's counter.

Note his point;
  • He suggests that mathematical entities are theoretical posits which are justified in terms of the broader context, the whole theory (i.e. epistemological holism), in a way similar to the unobservable and undetectable entities of physics and other sciences.
Quine on the Existence of Numbers & Abstract Objects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lm1HW02zwo
A short clip of Quine explaining his mathematical realist view in the light of his commitment to physicalism (or materialism).

He suggests that mathematical entities are theoretical posits which are justified in terms of the broader context, the whole theory (i.e. epistemological holism), in a way similar to the unobservable and undetectable entities of physics and other sciences.

And since he thinks that we cannot believe a theory without also believing in the existence of the basic entities that are posited and indispensable to the theory, then insofar as mathematical notions are themselves indispensable to our best theories of the world (i.e. they cannot be paraphrased away), then we must believe in the existence of such mathematical entities as well.
"Other sciences" would refer fields of knowledge like subjects like neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary psychology, biology, on mental elements like emotions, feelings, desires, drives and other mental things that are traceable and reducible to their physical referents in the brain and while physical self.
Post Reply