Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #721Re: No Reification Here
From: Michael Zeleny
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:48
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:48
58 lines
2835 bytes
2835 bytes
In article <1hpqgkINNmi6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes: >>From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) >>PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes: J: >>>But, I don't understand how using unreified predicates instead of >>>objects helps avoid set theoretic paradoxes. Grelling's paradox >>>uses only a predicate, and (unless I'm very confused) does not >>>require reification. MZ: >>You are very confused. If Grelling's paradox is regarded as purely >>syntactical, then it is unproblematic on a Quinian view that requires >>stratification (as spurious as such a requirement might be); if, on >>the other hand, it is regarded as semantical, then the contradiction >>depends on the assumption that the predicate "...is heterological" >>expresses a _bona fide_ property. J: >Well, if I was confused before, I am more confused now. You have my sympathies. J: >First of all, if a view (Quinean or otherwise) requires stratification >to deal with a purely syntactical predicate, then the issue of >reification is not the salient one. Stratification is a strategy >for eliminating the paradoxes whether the predicates are reified or not. Correct. Stratification is a purely syntactical trick. Rage away, Randall. J: >Second, I have no idea whether "is heterological" expresses a bona >fide property. I care only that whether it is a meaningful predicate. >(What would it express if not a bona fide property? A trope?) A predicate is meaningful, if and only if it expresses a property. J: >My point was that the Grelling paradox doesn't depend on any >quantification over properties, nor on a semantics that >assigns objects to predicates. It's solution is (must be) >independent of the question of reification. Well, that depends. I suggested two interpretations of Grelling's paradox. A purely syntactical one is blocked by stratification; on the other hand, the semantical one does not get off the ground, until and unless one comes up with a semantics that assigns a predicate object to the adjective `heterological'. So there you are. >Jamie cordially, mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec29.114844.18880@husc3.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zelenyReferences:
<1hntpkINNnp8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <1992Dec28.203018.18876@husc3.harvard.edu> <1hpqgkINNmi6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic Subject: Re: No Reification Here Message-ID: <1992Dec29.114844.18880@husc3.harvard.edu> Date: 29 Dec 92 16:48:42 GMT References: <1hntpkINNnp8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <1992Dec28.203018.18876@husc3.harvard.edu> <1hpqgkINNmi6@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal Lines: 58 Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu