The identity of argument-places

Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (3):335-354 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Argument-places play an important role in our dealing with relations. However, that does not mean that argument-places should be taken as primitive entities. It is possible to give an account of relations in which argument-places play no role. But if argument-places are not basic, then what can we say about their identity? Can they, for example, be reconstructed in set theory with appropriate urelements? In this article, we show that for some relations, argument-places cannot be modeled in a neutral way in V[A], the cumulative hierarchy with basic ingredients of the relation as urelements. We argue that a natural way to conceive of argument-places is to identify them with abstract, structureless points of a derivative structure exemplified by positional frames. In case the relation has symmetry, these points may be indiscernible

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
144 (#299,765)

6 months
32 (#272,931)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joop Leo
Utrecht University

Citations of this work

Collective Abstraction.Jon Erling Litland - 2022 - Philosophical Review 131 (4):453-497.
Relations.Fraser MacBride - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophy of Mathematics.Stewart Shapiro - 1997 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press USA.
Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology.Stewart Shapiro - 2000 - Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):120-123.
The limits of abstraction.Kit Fine - 2002 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Matthias Schirn.
Neutral relations.Kit Fine - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (1):1-33.
Structuralism and metaphysics.Charles Parsons - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):56--77.

View all 9 references / Add more references