home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4629 sci.logic:2485
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!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: <1992Dec28.203018.18876@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 01:30:15 GMT
- References: <1992Dec25.052154.18835@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Dec28.190416.1204@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1hntpkINNnp8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
- Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
- Lines: 20
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu
-
- In article <1hntpkINNnp8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
- PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
-
- >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.
-
- 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.
-
- >Jamie
-
- cordially,
- mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
- "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-