Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:15:09.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making the Lightness of Being Bearable: Arithmetical Platonism, Fictional Realism and Cognitive Command

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Bill Wringe
Bill Wringe*
Affiliation:
Bilkent University, 06800 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I wish to defend a minimalist version of arithmetical Platonism — which I shall refer to as ‘minimal Platonism’ — from an objection which alleges that an advocate of this view is committed to an unduly capacious ontology. The objection, which I shall call the ‘Lightness of Being’ objection, runs as follows. The minimal Platonist is committed to the claim that arithmetical objects, such as numbers, exist provided that two conditions are met. The first is that terms for numerals are singular terms — where something's being a singular term is judged on the basis of purely syntactic criteria. The second is that some sentences in which these singular terms feature are non-trivially true. However, the names of fictional characters are also singular terms (when judged by the metaphysically lightweight criteria used by advocates of minimal Platonism).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 453 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brock, S. 2002. ‘Fictionalism about Fictional Objects,’ Nous 36, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. and Rosen, G. 1997. A Subject with No Object. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 1990. The Nature of Fiction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divers, J. and Miller, A. 1995. ‘Minimalism and the Unbearable Lightness of Being,’ Philosophical Papers 24, 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divers, J. and Miller, A. 1999. ‘Arithmetical Platonism: Reliability and Judgment-Dependence,’ Philosophical Studies 95, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. 1994. ‘Review: Debates About Realism Transposed into a New Key,’ Mind 103, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1975. ‘Identity and Predication,’ Journal of Philosophy 72, 343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. 1980. Science Without Numbers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, B. and Wright, C. 1994. ‘A Reductio ad Surdum? Field on the Contingency of Mathematical Objects,’ Mind 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, B. and Wright, C. 2002. ‘Benacerraf's Dilemma Revisited,’ European Journal of Philosophy 10, 101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölbel, M. 2004. ‘Faultless Disagreement,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 94, 55–73.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. ‘Truth in Fiction,’ Collected Papers vol. 1, 261–82.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. 1995. The Facts of Causation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. 2004. ‘Differences with Wright,’ Philosophical Quarterly 54, 595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2004. ‘Properties and Kinds of Tropes: New Linguistic Facts and Old Philosophical Insights,’ Mind 113, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. 1986. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. 2001. ‘Abstract Objects,’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001). E. Zalta, ed. URL: <http://plato.stanford.edu/archivesfall2001/entries/abstract-objects/>>Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. 1996. ‘Crispin Wright Truth and Objectivity,’ Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch 56, 899–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. 1997. ‘Nonexistence,’ Nous 32, 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. and Taschek, W. 1996. ‘Intuitionism, Pluralism and Cognitive Command,’ Journal of Philosophy 93, 74–88.Google Scholar
Steward, H. 1997. The Ontology of Mind: Events, States and Processes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walton, K. 1990. Mimesis as Make-Believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1987. ‘Towards a Sensible Subjectivism,’ in Needs, Values, Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 1994. ‘Critical Study of Truth and Objectivity,’ International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2, 130–44.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, N. 1976. ‘Worlds of Works of Art,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. 1983. Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1992. Truth and Objectivity. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2001. ‘On Being in a Quandary: Relativism, Vagueness, Logical Revisionism,’ Mind 110, 45–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar