形上學基礎讀書會
時間: 7/5(日) 上午10:00~12:00
地點: 心哲所會議室
材料: Metaphysics: a contemporary introduction by Michael J. Loux
本次討論範圍:
1 The problem of universals I: metaphysical realism 東穎報告
2 The problem of universals II: nominalism 任瑜報告
歡迎提問和討論!
報名讀書會請email: jo.yt.lin@gmail.com 映彤
14 comments:
建議大家參加讀書會之前
可以先把王文方老師的形上學念一念歐
Ch1
1. Would you think the realist view is simply dependent on how we categorize the things in language?
2. How would you think the difference between the two ones in ‘one plus one is two’ and ‘there is one man’?
Ch2
1. Would you think the green of tree and the green of grass are different?
2. Would you think universals only exist in mind?
my question for"The problem of universals":
If you are a nominalism,and tend to deny abstract entities of any sort,and deny the sincerity--the existence of material objects,
when you say" there are no abstract entities",how should you describe what you mean?
It must at least one type:abstract type!....my little opinon
Chapter 1
1. Is there any rule to explain why certain universals exemplified by certain
particulars ? For example: A particular red apple is red in the sense of universal redness.
If particular red is different from universal redness in kind, then these two terms must be related in a certain way that insures what it says is true.
If there is such a certain way, what is it? An universal or a particular? I think both sides will lead to problems.
If there is no such certain way, how can we relate the two terms if they are entities in different kinds?
2. If it is not vicious that there lies an infinite series of distinct universals, how can we define a particular completely?
Besides, how can it compatible with Occam’s razor?
Chapter 2
1. For trope theory, how can we make a set of resembling tropes with out presuppose a common property? How do certain tropes belong to a same set?
2. For fictionalism, is there any relations or any corresponds between linguistic and actual world in order to check whether a sentence is true or false? If not, all terms concern about abstract entities will be useless in actual world.
我不介意用中文發問^^"
Ch1
1.
你贊同realism的看法嗎？主要理由為何？
2.
如果一個句子是假的，還能用realism的方法理解嗎？
Jenyu Liu
Ch2
1. 你贊同nominalism的看法嗎？主要理由為何？
2. 請問數學是共相嗎? 如果是，是否可作為反駁nominalism?如果不是，nominalism應如何改寫包含數學的語句?
大體上可以感覺得出來，文獻中討論universal的ontological status時，總是從語言中反應出的predicates, kinds, properties, etc. "universals"著手。
在第一章中，支持realism的兩大arguments竟也以這樣符合我們的語用習慣為主（因為其存在，abstract reference與predicates才有指涉對象、有意義），然而這樣的討論卻非常容易陷入所謂的verbal dispute而已。
是否可以有其他獨立於語言與概念的方法來argue for universal的ontological存在(爾後簡稱「存在」）？
或許，可以從causal power來下手。first-order的substance有其causal power, 記得有一派形上學主張就是說存在就是以causal power來定義，也就是說若沒有causal power就不存在。那universal的存在是否也可以如此定義？universal不是沒有可能有因果效力的，例如，像「紅色」這種universal在生物上可以看到許多生物已經發展出專門針對「紅色」這個類別的偵測與反應機制，這就是「紅色」展現出其因果效力的地方。
這樣說來就可以限縮universal的範圍，不會無限的產生the universals of the universals of the universals....，因為到一定的抽象程度已經沒有因果效力可言，他只是反應我們的語用結果。
我中文不好 T.T 可能寫得不是很清楚說...
千
ch1
1.why realist claim that the predicate have to have a referent?
2.我們談universal存在的時候，我們都是在談universal property存在嗎？
ch2
1.nominalism如何解決realism在解釋attribute agreement所遇到infinite regress的問題？
2.Where is the direction which fictionalism can do more effort to make the theory more convincing?
Chi
1. What do we mean by "there are universals"? Do they exist when things exemplified them disappear?
2. In the discussion between realism and nominalism, is there a presupossition in the way we use language?
Ch2
1. How come Trope Nominalism can prove the non-existence of universal just by rewritting?
2. Can we also do it in other languages?
第一章中argue for predicates勢必也有refer到東西的方法，首先是從predicates help us pick out objects著手, 如Socrates若有很多人都叫這名字的話，courageous的Socrates至少幫助了我們指涉到正確的socrates了吧？
之後則是說predicates express or connote universals, 以此說明predicates是如何跟universal產生referential關係的。然而我覺得...這expression or connotation的假設卻「自然」得毫無支持論證。
Ch1 蒐集的問題
1. universala會不會有無限退後的問題？
2. "是XX的老師"這個predicate為何又如何指涉到實體？
3. 「關係」和「性質」的是什麼意思？
4. subject和predicate為何詞性需要一致？
5. 何謂functional kind？
6. kind和property有什麼差異？
7. 什麼是singular term？
8. 「初基」對的意義何在？
今天感謝大家的批評和指教，我個人感覺受益非淺，也有助於我對悖論的正確認識。
Post a Comment