Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Class nominalists analyze a particular's having of a prop... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Class nominalism faces a vicious regress when trying to define the membership relation.

    Class nominalists analyze a particular's having of a property in terms of that particular's membership in a class of things that all share that property.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Class nominalism faces a vicious regress when trying to define the membership re...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The membership relation itself would need to be analyzed, generating a further m...

    Similar

    If a nominalist explains why object a is F by appealing to the fact th...83%The nominalist is unable to account for the common features of certain...79%Class nominalism faces a vicious regress when trying to define the mem...79%The nominalist is obligated to analyze away apparent reference to type...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: bradley-regress
    View source passageHide passage
    Finally, D.M. Armstrong (1979) has stated a regress argument similar to Bradley’s, as a threat to class nominalists. The thought is that since class nominalists analyze particulars’ having of properties in terms of particulars’ membership in a class of things that all have those properties, they would incur a regress when trying to define a membership relation. However, class nominalists like Lewis (2002), have been adamant about not being committed to a membership relation of any sort; indeed,

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective