Charles Peirce, the founder of pragmatism, was a thinker of extraordinary depth and range - he wrote on philosophy, mathematics, psychology, physics, logic, phenomenology, semiotics, religion and ethics - but his writings are difficult and fragmentary. This book provides a clear and comprehensive explanation of Peirce's thought. His philosophy is presented as a systematic response to 'nominalism', the philosophy which he most despised and which he regarded as the underpinning of the dominant philosophical worldview of his time. The book (...) explains Peirce's challenge to nominalism as a theory of meaning and shows its implications for his views of knowledge, truth, the nature of reality, and ethics. It will be essential reading both for Peirce scholars and for those new to his work. (shrink)

James Ladyman has argued that constructive empiricism entails modal realism, and that this renders constructive empiricism untenable. We maintain that constructive empiricism is compatible with modal nominalism. Although the central term 'observable' has been analyzed in terms of counterfactuals, and in general counterfactuals do not have objective truth conditions, the property of being observable is not a modal property, and hence there are objective, non-modal facts about what is observable. Both modal nominalism and constructive empiricism require clarification in (...) the face of Ladyman's argument. But we also argue that, even if Ladyman were right that constructive empiricism entails modal realism, this would not be a problem for constructive empiricism. (shrink)

The Quine-Putnam Indispensability argument is the argument for treating mathematical entities on a par with other theoretical entities of our best scientific theories. This argument is usually taken to be an argument for mathematical realism. In this chapter I will argue that the proper way to understand this argument is as putting pressure on the viability of the marriage of scientific realism and mathematical nominalism. Although such a marriage is a popular option amongst philosophers of science and mathematics, in (...) light of the indispensability argument, the marriage is seen to be very unstable. Unless one is careful about how the Quine-Putnam argument is disarmed, one can be forced to either mathematical realism or, alternatively, scientific instrumentalism. I will explore the various options: (i) finding a way to reconcile the two partners in the marriage by disarming the indispensability argument (Jody Azzouni [2], Hartry Field [13, 14], Alan Musgrave [18, 19], David Papineau [21]); (ii) embracing mathematical realism (W.V.O. Quine [23], Michael Resnik [25], J.J.C. Smart [27]); and (iii) embracing some form of scientific instrumentalism (Ot´ avio Bueno [7, 8], Bas van Fraassen [30]). Elsewhere [11], I have argued for option (ii) and I won’t repeat those arguments here. Instead, I will consider the difficulties for each of the three options just mentioned, with special attention to option (i). In relation to the latter, I will discuss an argument due to Alan Musgrave [19] for why option (i) is a plausible and promising approach. From the discussion of Musgrave’s argument, it will emerge that the issue of holist versus separatist theories of confirmation plays a curious role in the realism–antirealism debate in the philosophy of mathematics. I will argue that if you take confirmation to be an holistic matter—it’s whole theories (or significant parts thereof) that are confirmed in any experiment—then there’s an inclination to opt for (ii) in order to resolve the marital tension outlined above.. (shrink)

divisibility in Physics VI. I had been assuming at that time that Aristotle's elimination of reference to the infinitely large in his account of the potential inf inite--like the elimination of the infinitely small from nineteenth century accounts of limits and continuity--gave us everything that was important in a theory of the infinite. Hilbert's paper showed me that this was not obviously so. Suddenly other certainties about Aristotle's (apparently) judicious toning down of (supposed) Platonic extremisms began to crumble. The upshot (...) of work I had been doing earlier on Plato's 'Third Man Argument' began to look different from the way it had before. I was confronted with a possibility I had not till then so much as entertained. What if the more extreme posi tions of Plato on these issues were the more likely to be correct? The present work is the first instalment of the result ing reassessment of Plato's metaphysics, and especially of his theory of Forms. It has occupied much of my teaching and scholarly time over the past fifteen years and more. The central question wi th which I concern myself is, "How does Plato argue for the existence of his Forms (if he does )7" The idea of making this the central question is that if we know how he argues for the existence of Forms, we may get a better sense of what they are. (shrink)

Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra offers a fresh philosophical account of properties. How is it that two different things (such as two red roses) can share the same property (redness)? According to resemblance nominalism, things have their properties in virtue of resembling other things. This unfashionable view is championed with clarity and rigor.

In this paper, I provide an easy road to nominalism which does not rely on a Field-type nominalization strategy for mathematics. According to this proposal, applications of mathematics to science, and alleged mathematical explanations of physical phenomena, only emerge when suitable physical interpretations of the mathematical formalism are advanced. And since these interpretations are rarely distinguished from the mathematical formalism, the impression arises that mathematical explanations derive from the mathematical formalism alone. I correct this misimpression by pointing out, in (...) the cases recently discussed by Mark Colyvan, exactly where the interpretations of the formalism were invoked and the function they played in the resulting explanations. A viable form of easy - road nominalism, which is also sensitive to scientific practice, then arises. (shrink)

In this article I trace some of the main tenets of the struggle between nominalism and realism as identified by John Deely in his Four ages of understanding. The aim is to assess Deely’s claim that the Age of Modernity was nominalist and that the coming age, the Age of Postmodernism — which he portrays as a renaissance of the late middle ages and as starting with Peirce — is realist. After a general overview of how Peirce interpreted the (...) nominalist-realist controversy, Deely gives special attention to Thomas Aquinas’s On being and essence and the realism it entails. A subsequent discussion of the Modern Period shows that the issue of nominalism and realism is very much tied up with di¤erent conceptions of the intellect. Deely credits the theory of evolution with bringing us a conception of the intellect that is closer to that of the Middle Ages and that opens the way for a truly realistic ‘‘fourth age’’ of the understanding. (shrink)

According to the indispensability argument, scientific realists ought to believe in the existence of mathematical entities, due to their indispensable role in theorising. Arguably the crucial sense of indispensability can be understood in terms of the contribution that mathematics sometimes makes to the super-empirical virtues of a theory. Moreover, the way in which the scientific realist values such virtues, in general, and draws on explanatory virtues, in particular, ought to make the realist ontologically committed to abstracta. This paper shows that (...) this version of the indispensability argument glosses over crucial detail about how the scientific realist attempts to generate justificatory commitment to unobservables. The kind of role that the Platonist attributes to mathematics in scientific reasoning is compatible with nominalism, as far as scientific realist arguments are concerned. (shrink)

According to Jody Azzouni’s “deflationary nominalism,” the singular terms of mathematical language applied or unapplied to science refer to nothing at all. What does exist, Azzouni claims, must satisfy the quaternary condition he calls “thick epistemic access” (TEA). In this paper I argue that TEA surreptitiously reifies some mathematical entities. The mathematical entity that I take TEA to reify is the Fourier harmonic, an infinite-duration monochromatic sinusoid applied throughout engineering and physics. I defend the reality of the harmonic, in (...) Azzouni’s account, not by satisfying all four TEA conditions with respect to it, but by showing that the harmonic renders satisfiable the TEA condition called “grounding,” specifically in Azzouni’s (Talking about nothing: numbers, hallucinations, and fictions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) example of a human visually perceiving a vase. The harmonic thereby plays what Azzouni calls an “epistemic role,” and merits inclusion in the deflationary nominalist ontology. Against the “coding” objection of Azzouni and Bueno (Br J Philos Sci 67:781–816, 2016), which would nominalize the harmonic to nonexistent status, I reply that in the context of grounding, the coding objection begs the question. (shrink)

Whereas traditional nominalists accept the realist's challenge to solve a 'Problem of Universals', the Ostrich Nominalist responds that there is no such Problem to answer. I suggest that Ostrich Nominalist arguments expose a genuine flaw in the realist project. However, I argue, Ostrich Nominalism is ultimately defeated by a problem about the analysis of qualitative sameness and difference. Qualitative sameness and difference are adequately understood only as sameness or difference in some respect. The need to say what these respects (...) of sameness and difference are (if not universals) constitutes a genuine Problem of Universals; consequently—I claim—the Ostrich Nominalist is mistaken. (shrink)

What was the basis for the adoption of mathematics as the primary mode of discourse for describing natural events by a large segment of the philosophical community in the seventeenth century? In answering this question, this book demonstrates that a significant group of philosophers shared the belief that there is no necessary correspondence between external reality and objects of human understanding, which they held to include the objects of mathematical and linguistic discourse. The result is a scholarly reliable, but accessible, (...) account of the role of mathematics in the works of (amongst others) Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Berkeley. This impressive volume will benefit scholars interested in the history of philosophy, mathematical philosophy and the history of mathematics. (shrink)

Among biological kinds, the most important are species. But species, however defined, have vague boundaries, both synchronically owing to hybridization and ongoing speciation, and diachronically owing to genetic drift and genealogical continuity despite speciation. It is argued that the solution to the problems of species and their vague boundaries is to adopt a thoroughgoing nominalism in regard to all biological taxa, from species to domains. The base entities are individual organisms: populations of these compose species and higher taxa. This (...) accommodates all the important biological facts while avoiding the legacy problems of pre-evolutionary typological taxonomy, which saw species and other taxa as prior to their members. Species are however not individuals: they are spatiotemporally bounded collections, which are plural particulars. (shrink)

While operators for logical necessity and possibility represent "internal" conditions of propositions (or of their corresponding states of affairs), These conditions will be "formal", As is required by logical atomism, And not "material" in content if from the (pseudo) semantical point of view the modal operators range over "all the possible worlds" of a logical space rather than over arbitrary non-Empty sets of worlds (as is usually done in modal logic). Some of the implications of this requirement are noted and (...) though several variants of realist logical atomism are distinguished and discussed, The theory of logical form developed is nominalist. Many of nominalism's difficulties and inadequacies become transparent in the context of logical atomism and are so noted. (shrink)

Ostrich nominalists often cite Quine’s criterion of ontological commitment in order to claim that their view is more parsimonious than rival positions in ontology such as realism. We show that Quine’s criterion, properly understood, does not support this claim. Indeed, we show that ostrich nominalism has a far more profligate ontology than realism.

Wilfrid Sellars, Idealism, and Realism is the first study of its kind to address a range of realist and idealist views inspired by psychological nominalism. Bringing together premier analytic realists and distinguished defenders of German idealism, it reveals why psychological nominalism is one of the most important theories of the mind to come out the 20th century. The theory, first put forward by Wilfrid Sellars, argues that language is the only means by which humans can learn the types (...) of socially shared practices that permit rationality. Although wedded to important aspects of German idealism, Sellars' theory is couched in bold realist terms of the analytic tradition. Those who are sympathetic to German idealism find this realist's appropriation of German idealism problematic. Wilfrid Sellars, Idealism and Realism thus creates a rare venue for realists and idealists to debate the epistemic outcome of the mental processes they both claim are essential to experience. Their resulting discussion bridges the gap between analytic and continental philosophy. In providing original and accessible chapters on psychological nominalism, this volume raises themes that intersect with numerous disciplines: the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics. It also provides clarity on arguably the best available account of why humans can reason, be self-aware, know, and act as agents. (shrink)

This paper defends (especially in response to Brian Leftow’s recent attack) logical nominalism, the thesis that logically necessary truth belongs primarily to sentences and depends solely on the conventions of human language. A sentence is logically necessary (that is, a priori metaphysically necessary) iff its negation entails a contradiction. A sentence is a posteriori metaphysically necessary iff it reduces to a logical necessity when we substitute for rigid designators of objects or properties canonical descriptions of the essential properties of (...) those objects or properties. The truth-conditions of necessary sentences are not to be found in any transcendent reality, such as God’s thoughts. "There is a God" is neither a priori nor a posteriori metaphysically necessary; God is necessary in the sense that His existence is not causally contingent on anything else. (shrink)

Arda Denkel, in "Real Resemblances," argues for a moderate Nominalism where substances objectively have properties and relations, the latter being particulars, but dependent particulars, grouped into classes by objective relations of resemblance. This view is contrasted unfavorably with the view that properties and relations are universals instantiated by particulars. It is conceded that Denkel's scheme has much to commend it. But it is argued that the universals view has much more to be said for it than Denkel allows, and (...) that it is indeed, on balance, the superior view. (shrink)

Noam Chomsky equates an individual’s idiolect with a hypothesized psychological structure, an “I-language”, which the competent speaker/hearer “tacitly knows” or “cognizes” via “mental representations” of syntactic principles. Just what do these claims amount to? And what grounds are there for believing them? I attempt to pin down Chomsky’s evolving commitments regarding the relation between an I-language and the performance systems that are involved in comprehension and speech. This in turn raises issues about the empirical methodology and naturalistic credentials of Chomsky’s (...) “cognitivist” conception of language. I then discuss Michael Devitt’s “Linguistic Conception,” a contemporary descendent of nominalism, according to which language consists of concrete entities—inscriptions, acoustic blasts, and the like. Devitt argues that linguists describe certain properties of these entities—e.g., grammaticality and entailment—that allow them to play a role in communication. Both approaches face non-trivial difficulties. Chomsky’s view awaits an articulation of the relation between grammars and neurophysiological mechanisms. Devitt’s requires a more detailed account of public language conventions and a satisfactory strategy for paraphrasing away apparent references to unvoiced and abstract elements of syntactic structure—empty categories. Finally, I argue that Devitt is right to distinguish a competence from its outputs, and hence linguistics from psycholinguistics. -/- Keywords cognitivism, nominalism, E-language vs. I-language, idiolect, structural description, tacit knowledge, competence vs. performance, parsing, internalism (see also: individualism), Michael Devitt, conventions, empty categories (see also: unvoiced elements, phonologically null constituents), outputs of competence, the Linguistic Conception, supervenience, discovery procedures, Representational Thesis (RT). (shrink)

Quantified expressions in natural language generally are taken to act like quantifiers in logic, which either range over entities that need to satisfy or not satisfy the predicate in order for the sentence to be true or otherwise are substitutional quantifiers. I will argue that there is a philosophically rather important class of quantified expressions in English that act quite differently, a class that includes something, nothing, and several things. In addition to expressing quantification, such expressions act like nominalizations, introducing (...) a new domain of objects that would not have been present in the semantic structure of the sentence otherwise. The entities those expressions introduce are of just the same sort as those that certain ordinary nominalizations refer to (such as John's wisdom or John's belief that S), namely they are tropes or entities related to tropes. Analysing certain quantifiers as nominalizing quantifiers will shed a new light on philosophical issues such as the status of properties and the nature of propositional attitudes. (shrink)

It seems plausible to extend to the field of Disability Studies a certain nominalist point of view which is evident in Foucault’s work. What I have in mind is an “implantation of impairments” thesis, modelled after what Foucault calls the “implantation of perversions.” After sketching some features of this Foucauldian argument, I discuss the ideas of knowledge and power that it presupposes, then outline a critical perspective on Foucault’s nominalism.

Leibniz can be counted among the remote, but still significant, sources of Sellars's philosophy. Such thesis, however, is meaningless unless its conceptual relevance is displayed. Therefore, it will be immediately added that Sellars's relation with Leibniz is focused on three main fundamental issues, which respectively concern (1) the concept of nature, (2) the concept of truth and (3) the concept itself of nominalism. Besides, there are other seemingly minor topics, which actually refers to the definition of abstract entities, of (...) predicates, of proper names and to the datum/factum distinction. Another challenge the paper is faced with, regards the fact that Sellars does not consider Leibniz only in himself, given that he very often positions him in a close relation to Kant: it is as though there were multifaceted issues brought forward by Leibniz and Kant together forming a complex theoretical unity (over and above their differences). According to Sellars, in fact, they both undermine some of the most solid epistemological principles of the early modern times (mainly founded upon the subject- object lexicon and the idea of veritas as adaequatio rei et intellectus) and they both reshape the meaning of expressions such as “being actual” or “being true”. (shrink)

This paper examines a recent proposal for reviving so-called resemblance nominalism. It is argued that, although consistent, it naturally leads to trope theory upon examination for reasons having to do with the appeal of neutrality as regards certain non-trivial ontological theses.

The author reviews and summarizes, in as jargon-free way as he is capable of, the form of anti-platonist anti-nominalism he has previously developed in works since the 1980s, and considers what additions and amendments are called for in the light of such recently much-discussed views on the existence and nature of mathematical objects as those known as hyperintensional metaphysics, natural language ontology, and mathematical structuralism.

Professor Weinberg, in his recention, Relation, and Induction, has critically discussed the nominalistic tradition stemming from Ockham and continuing in the work of Berkeley and Hume. In this tradition there is one fundamental principle, which however divides into two parts. The first is Whatever is distinguishable is distinct, and conversely. The second is Whatever is distinct is separable, and conversely. Weinberg argues that both and are mistaken.In this paper I propose to explore the case against nominalism. I shall suggest (...) that Weinberg's argument against, though not defective in the way some recent critics believe, depends upon a hidden premiss. I shall also suggest that the argument against, when the needed premiss is added, is but a special case of a more general argument. The latter in no way depends upon considerations concerning relational predicates, though Weinberg does in his discussion specifically introduce such considerations. Nor is that unreasonable on his part. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall discuss a problem for nominalist theories: What is the ontological status of relations? Since nominalists reject universals, they must reduce relations to particulars. Some theories, such as Class Nominalism and Resemblance Nominalism, postulate classes to reduce relations. I examine two classical criticisms against the analysis of relations in Nominalism: the problem of order and the issues involving the Wiener-Kuratowski procedure. Even though the claim that relations are not classes is a well-established thesis, (...) I introduce two additional arguments against it. First, determining which class corresponds to a relation is arbitrary. Second, I argue that nominalist theories fail to provide an adequate hierarchical structure of reality. While previous objections focus primarily on technical issues in the reduction of relations to classes, my critique challenges the metaphysical coherence of such reductions. (shrink)

The argument used by Socrates to refute the thesis that piety is what all the gods love is one of the most well known in the history of philosophy. Yet some fundamental points of interpretation have gone unnoticed. I will show that (i) the strategy of Socrates' argument refutes not only Euthyphro's theory of piety and such neighboring doctrines as cultural relativism and subjectivism, but nominalism in general; moreover, that (ii) the argument needs to assume much less than is (...) generally thought, and finally that (iii) while Socrates' argument, properly understood in its full force, appears to be inconsistent with the goal of his own inquiry, his own 'Platonic' position escapes the inconsistency. (shrink)

According to Goodman one important advantage of his Structure of Appearance over Carnap’s Aufbau is that his is a nominalist, whereas Carnap’s is a platonist, construction. Superficially, it is clear enough why Goodman should say this: Carnap employs set-theory, whereas Goodman allows himself only mereology. One object of this paper is to show that this superficial impression is rather misleading—that closer comparison of the two books reveals that each has a claim to be regarded as the more nominalist. Another aim (...) is to show that Goodman takes his book to be quintessentially nominalist partly because his conception of nominalism is somewhat eccentric. And a third aim is to show that when nominalism is understood in Goodman’s fashion it is difficult to see what the motivation for it is; more specifically, that Goodman’s arguments for his version of nominalism are not compelling. (shrink)

First published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The historical significance of Panaccio’s chosen topic is obvious: the debate between nominalism and realism is a topic of perennial and continuing interest, and William Ockham, though he never designated himself as such, is arguably the best-known and most systematic nominalist in the history of Western philosophy. But much of Ockham’s work is relatively inaccessible even to philosophically sophisticated readers. Not only has much of it not yet been translated, but it is articulated in the terminology and conceptual framework (...) of medieval scholasticism, which tends even now to be the precinct of specialists. Thus, philosophically sophisticated non-medievalists have long needed a short but accurate introduction to... Read More. (shrink)

To many contemporary philosophers, the phrase “essentialist nominalism” may appear to be an oxymoron. After all, essentialism is the doctrine that things come in natural kinds characterized by their essential properties, on account of some common nature or essence they share. But nominalism is precisely the denial of the existence, indeed, the very possibility of such shared essences. Nevertheless, despite the intuitions of such contemporary philosophers,2 John Buridan was not only a thoroughgoing nominalist, as is well-known, but also (...) a staunch defender of a strong essentialist doctrine against certain skeptics of his time. But then the question inevitably arises: could he consistently maintain such a doctrine? (shrink)

This paper introduces Deep Resemblance Nominalism (DRN) as a novel approach within the framework of resemblance nominalism and compares it to other forms of nominalism, including Rodriguez-Pereyra’s Resemblance Nominalism (RN). DRN departs from RN in two significant ways. The first major difference lies in the formal properties of the resemblance relation. In RN, resemblance is treated as a two-place relation that holds between pairs of particulars. In contrast, DRN interprets resemblance as a plural relation, connecting a (...) particular to a plurality of particulars, rather than as a two-place relation between individual pairs of particulars. The second key difference lies in how the resemblance relation is understood. While RN characterizes resemblance as an internal relation grounded solely in the existence of resembling particulars, DRN treats resemblance as an irreducible relation that exists among particulars, rather than an internal one. I will argue that DRN offers a superior nominalist approach, not only when compared to RN but also to the other nominalist alternatives discussed in this paper. (shrink)

Rationalism is the ontological and epistemological view to the effect that there exist abstract entities—as classes, numbers, points, etc.—being cognitively available to our minds. Thus, the axiom of abstraction can be interpreted as the most concise statement of the rationalist position in its ontological facet. The acknowledging of abstracts may be motivated either with their direct intellectual vision, as claimed by Plato, or with their ‘indispensability’ for scientific progress, as claimed by Quine and a host of other famous thinkers. For (...) such a practical approach the term ‘Pragmatic Rationalism’ should be in order (more frequently one speaks of ‘pragmatic platonism’ but in the present context this term would be misleading). Among its followers there are some eminent members of the Lvov-Warsaw School. Predominantly, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz for his program of empirical methodology of sciences, and Alfred Tarski for the abundant use of highly abstract concepts in his mathematical research. Radical nominalism pioneered by Stanisław Leśniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbiński, denying the existence of classes, did not comply with methods and results of sciences. However, there is a moderate version of nominalism which pragmatically does admit classes, for the sake of scientific progress. This version has been suggested by Andrzej Grzegorczyk under the name of ‘liberal reism’. In such a pragmatic form, nominalism can comply with pragmatic rationalism, and the other way around. The latter is not bound to deny what nominalism says about ontological and epistemological priority of physical individuals. Even such a convinced rationalist as Gödel shared with nominalists (unlike Plato) that observational statements concerning physical individuals are most basic in the structure of our knowledge. A nice example of such reconciliation is found in Tarski’s work ‘Foundations of the geometry of solids’. He recedes from Euclid’s idea of point as a primitive concept, in accordance with the claim of reistic nominalism that only solids can play such a role. Instead, he starts from the concept of sphere, defining ‘the point as the class of all spheres which are concentric with a given sphere’. Thus, the typically abstract concept of class (attacked by radical nominalism) proves indispensable to do justice to the ontological priority of physical individuals—a hallmark of nominalism. In such a way, Tarski, when doing justice to nominalism, at the same time gains considerable scores for pragmatic rationalism as well. Such a constructive collaboration of the two opposing camps within the School sheds a new light on the School’s ability to solve hard problems with a vigorous and ‘penetrative discussion’ between opposite standpoints. (shrink)

Only concreta are causative, though other things can play a passive part in enabling them to do the causing that they do. Nonconcreta—platonic universals included—are just the instrumental and ethical values of concreta. There is no sense of the word in which both concreta and nonconcreta “exist”; but, coining one, we can say nothing “exists,” in that coined sense, over and above concreta, their vicissitudes and their values. That is nominalism.

In this paper, I examine Peter Schulte’s “Grounding Nominalism” (Schulte, 2018), understood as the claim that first-order properties and relations are grounded in the concrete particulars which instantiate them. While Schulte offered reasons to think that this view is consistent, along with answers to a number of objections, a more straightforward argument for GN is still needed. I take on this task here, by discussing and defending what I call the “argument from abstraction”. The latter, I suggest, offers more (...) grounds to Grounding Nominalism. (shrink)

In this article, we seek to analyze some of the methodological assumptions that contribute to the understanding of Foucault’s nominalism, as well as some of the theoretical consequences of this nominalism. With this intent, in the first part, we deal with his “refusal” of universals, emphasizing the distinction, made in the first volume of the History of Sexuality, between sex and sexuality. In a second moment, we underline this option of Foucault’s method based on excerpts from Nietzsche that (...) demarcate the knowledge’s arbitrary and contingent character. (shrink)

In this article, I will offer some remarks about Tarski’s nominalism. First, I will show that, even though it was mainly developed in private conversation and lectures, Tarski did try to develop a rigorous nominalistic theory, which shows that the issue was of some importance to him. In particular, I show how Tarski’s formulation is based on the idea of a humanly understandable language and show how he tried to develop this idea throughout his career. Unfortunately, even though his (...) formulation is interesting, it seems to face an insurmountable obstacle, which I examine in detail in the article. Finally, I offer some remarks about what went wrong with Tarski’s nominalist program. (shrink)

Among the traditional issues in philosophy that are directly affected by Michael Polanyi's revolutionary epistemology and its related ontology are nominalism and the question of universals. Polanyi's treatment of these matters is particularly fruitful, for it not only clarifies his conceptions of "tacit knowing" and "indwelling" but also illuminates his understanding of truth and reality and introduces us to his views on induction. Such inquiry will also demonstrate a deep affinity between Polanyi's position and that of Charles Sanders Peirce, (...) while at the same time illustrating how Polanyi joins a number of late nineteenth- and early to mid-twentieth-century philosophers in aiming to resolve central problems of .. (shrink)

According to Stewart Shapiro's coherence principle, structures exist whenever they can be coherently described. I argue that Shapiro's attempts to justify this principle are circular, as he relies on criticisms of modal nominalism which presuppose the coherence principle. I argue further that when the coherence principle is not presupposed, his reasoning more strongly supports modal nominalism than ante rem structuralism.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Readymades, Monochromes, Etc.:Nominalism and the Paradox of ModernismJ. M. Bernstein (bio)If Schopenhauer's thesis of art as an image of the world once over bears a kernel of truth, then it does so only insofar as this second world is composed out of elements that have been transposed out of the empirical world in accord with Jewish descriptions of the messianic order as an order just like the habitual (...) order but changed in the slightest degree.—T. W. Adorno, Aesthetic TheoryAdorno's philosophy as a whole, and his aesthetic theory in particular, is irrevocably bound to the tradition and achievements of high modernism. Although Adorno himself did not recognize American Abstract Expression as the apotheosis of high modernism in painting, that judgment now hardly seems contentious.1 And that raises a problem: it is the problem of R. Mutt, again, the problem of the porcelain urinal called Fountain, which was refused admittance to the Society of Independent Artists' Exhibition in April 1917 in spite of the Society's proclaimed democratic slogan "No jury, no prizes"—the work whose life or after-life begins with the beautiful photograph of it by Stieglitz set against the background of Marsden Hartley's The Warriors and that appeared shortly thereafter in the new avant-garde journal The Blind Man. Whatever the immediate repercussions of Fountain, there can be little doubt that much of what is most vital in art in the second half of this century is unthinkable without it; Duchamp's readymade offers an exemplary alternative to the tradition of high modernist painting that has continued to be generative. For a modernist like Adorno, for whom authentic art is that which best rises to the demands and necessities of artistic materials, for whom internal consistency and rigor would appear to be everything, for whom, finally, aesthetic form is the "objective organization within each artwork of what appears as bindingly eloquent" [AT 143; emphasis mine], Duchamp's gesture of simply naming or claiming artistic status for an ordinary bathroom fixture must be anathema. In this respect, Adorno's aesthetic theory would seem to be in the same predicament as Clement Greenberg's modernism: inextricably bound to a tradition that history has left behind. And while the option of refuting the claim of Fountain is certainly possible, and should not be too quickly suppressed (there is something in the claim that will forever be skeptically self-defeating), nonetheless there does appear to be an exemplariness to Fountain that exceeds the narrow provocation of Duchamp's nominalist gesture; something in the readymade, in fact, seems (art historically? aesthetically? conceptually?) irresistible. If so, then modernist [End Page 83] formalism must either find a way of accommodating the readymade without departing from its internal logic or find its claim to our attention forfeited.After laying out the bold outlines of Adorno's formalism, the remainder of this essay will seek to uncover an account of the readymade in the context of what I will eventually call "the paradox of modernism" in order to locate in what way the readymade can be accommodated to a defense of Adorno's late modernism. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to assume that the best overall defense of Duchamp's gesture, which makes it foundational for the understanding of modern art, is that offered by Thierry de Duve in his Kant after Duchamp. My elaboration of Adorno's late modernism will hence proceed, in part, through a charting of some of the fault lines in de Duve's Duchamp. My contention shall be that the generativity of Fountain as readymade not only belongs within modernism, but is only intelligible within a wholly modernist and formalist frame of reference.Adorno's Formalism and the Material MotiveAdorno opens the section of Aesthetic Theory entitled "Coherence and Meaning" with the drastic sounding thesis that "Although artworks are neither conceptual nor judgmental, they are logical" [AT 136]. He continues:In them nothing would be enigmatic if their immanent logicality did not accommodate discursive thought, which criteria they nevertheless regularly disappoint. They most resemble the form of a syllogism and its prototype in empirical thought. That in the temporal... (shrink)

It is widely assumed that platonism with respect to a discourse of metaphysical interest, such as fictional or mathematical discourse, affords a better account of the semantic appearances than nominalism, other things being equal. Of course, other things may not be equal. For example, platonism is supposed to come at the cost of a plausible epistemology and ontology. But the hedged claim is often treated as a background assumption. It is motivated by the intuitively stronger one that the platonist (...) can take the semantic appearances at 'face-value' while the nominalist must resort to ad hoc and technically problematic machinery in order to explain those appearances away. In this article, I argue that, on any natural construal of 'face-value', the platonist, like the nominalist, is not able to take the semantic appearances at face-value. And insofar as the nominalist is forced to resort to ad hoc and technically awkward devices i n order to explain those appearances away, the platonist must resort to such devices as well. One moral of the story is that the thesis that platonism affords a better account of the semantic appearances than nominalism - even other things being equal - is not trivial. Another is that we should rethink a widespread methodology in metaphysics. © 2023 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved. (shrink)