On a nominalist reading advanced by Quine, apparent property-attribution in 'a is F' is fully captured by applying a predicate expression to a name, requiring no abstract property-entity as a third term in any linking relation.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Abstract property-entity(what nominalists deny exists as a separate thing): An intangible, non-physical thing—like the quality 'redness' itself, existing independently rather than only in red objects.
Linking relation(how properties might relate to the things they describe): A connection or relationship between two things—in this case, how properties might connect to objects.
Name (in logic)(the 'a' in the expression 'a is F'): A word or symbol that refers to a specific thing or object—like 'Socrates' or 'the Eiffel Tower.'
Predicate expression(how language works in the statement 'a is F'): The part of a sentence that describes or says something about the subject—in 'the sky is blue,' the predicate expression is 'is blue.'
Property-attribution(what happens when we describe things): The act of assigning a quality or characteristic to something—like saying 'the ball is red' (attributing the property of redness to the ball).
Quine(as a proper name referring to the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): Willard Van Orman Quine was a 20th-century American philosopher who wrote about how we know things and how language works. In this statement, we're discussing one of his specific ideas about observation.
nominalism(Metaphysics; opposed to realism about universals): The view that abstract entities such as properties or universals do not exist, and that predicative facts must be explained without appealing to such entities.

2 topics